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 Co. decision to this case, explain in detail why or why not the mechanic would be liable and provide a thorough analysis. Make sure to apply the facts of this situation to the Negligence Analysis as well with particular focus on the Palsgraf application.

Answer 1

ANSWER:

• For this situation Phillip would lose in light of the fact that the mechanic couldn't have predicted the injury to philip.mechanicThe doesn't owe an obligation of care to Philip as he was far away and the injury was not sensibly predictable by Philip.A respondent can not be held subject for a physical issue that can not be sensibly foreseen.A litigant owes an obligation of care to the individuals who are inside the sensibly predictable zone of danger.Here,philip was not inside the predictable zone of risk as he was far away over the street.So,Philip would lose .
• So as to demonstrate proximate reason in carelessness claim, the injury to the offended party ought to be predictable to the litigant. On the off chance that the damage isn't predictable, there is no obligation of care towards the offended party. Here while carelessly over-blowing up the tire, Marsha could predict the damage that may happen to the individuals around him. Be that as it may, Phillip was at the bus station and Marsha was available over the road and down the square. The injury to Phillip through the pit bulls isn't predictable to Marsha.
• Subsequently Mike doesn't owe an obligation of care towards Phillip and Phillip would lose. Marsha has the information on peril he was making for the individuals close to him yet not for Phillip. The proprietor isn't obligated for the wounds brought about by residential creatures like pooch on the off chance that he was not careless in taking care of the creature. Pit bull is a risky canine yet the mutts were liberated because of tire blast and not because of carelessness. Phillip can't win dependent on severe risk for strolling pit bulls. Marsha's protection isn't a factor in deciding obligation for carelessness.

PLEASE UPVOTE.