Question

Phillip was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, a mechanic negligently overinflated a tire he was intending to put onto Marsha’s pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Marsha and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street and knocked Phillip down, injuring his knee. Phillip sued the mechanic. In applying the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad decision to this case, Phillip would

a. win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, which led to Phillip’s injury.b. win based on negligence per se.c. lose because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.d. lose because, although the mechanic’s conduct was negligent toward Marsha, it was not a wrong in relation to Phillip, who was far away. The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Phillip and therefore had no duty to him.

Answer 1

D )lose because, although the mechanic’s conduct was negligent toward Marsha, it was not wrong about Phillip, who was far away. The mechanic could not have certain injuries to Phillip and therefore had no duty to him.

Explanation:

there is no difficult illusory to the eye then this will be innocent and no harm. It is classical negligence to create the situation. Palsegraf is the future law of American tort law about the ignorance of the incident. It is the boundaries of ignorance, that create a scope of duty around certain harm of a person. The pals-grave impacts the society for last many decades. It creates an extraordinary risk for people and cost them from the modern economy related to infrastructure and development of a country.