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,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.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. decision established the concept of proximate cause, which means that a defendant is only liable for harm that they could have reasonably foreseen. In this case, although the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, the harm caused to Phillip was not a foreseeable consequence of that negligence. The mechanic had no duty to Phillip because he could not have foreseen injury to him, so Phillip would lose his case. Choice D is the correct answer.

Phillip Was Waiting for a Bus at a Bus Stop