Final answer:
There is a mismatch between the case information provided and the Palsgraf case. The information given describes Plessy v. Ferguson which is not relevant to Palsgraf which deals with negligence and foreseeability. Without correct context or additional facts about Raymond's situation, it's not possible to apply the Palsgraf ruling to his case.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question relates to the application of the Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. decision to a hypothetical case involving a person named Raymond. However, the information provided does not pertain to Palsgraf but instead describes the unrelated case of Plessy v. Ferguson. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
This is distinct from Palsgraf, which dealt with the issue of foreseeability in determining negligence and the scope of duty owed to individuals. Based on what is known about Palsgraf, without additional facts about Raymond's case, it's not possible to determine the success of his lawsuit against the mechanic. The Palsgraf case established the principle that negligence requires that the harm be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's actions.