The world’s Largest Sharp Brain Virtual Experts Marketplace Just a click Away
Levels Tought:
Elementary,High School,College,University,PHD
| Teaching Since: | May 2017 |
| Last Sign in: | 386 Weeks Ago, 4 Days Ago |
| Questions Answered: | 20103 |
| Tutorials Posted: | 20155 |
MBA, PHD
Phoniex
Jul-2007 - Jun-2012
Corportae Manager
ChevronTexaco Corporation
Feb-2009 - Nov-2016
Pat was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, Mike the mechanic was negligently over inflating a tire he intended to put on his pickup. He had been involved with problems with over inflated tires blowing up so he knew the danger. This tire did explode, startling a man walking two pit bulls who broke free and viciously attacked Pat. Applying the court's logic and ruling in Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road, Pat would probably:
options:
1) Win because the mechanic was negligent and had knowledge of the danger he was creating.
2) Win in strict liability because walking pit bulls is an ultrahazardous activity.
3) Win because Pat's injuries were severe and Mike had good insurance.
4) Lose because there was no foreseeable duty of care that extended to Pat from Mike's negligence.
Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k Y-----------ou -----------for----------- us-----------ing----------- ou-----------r w-----------ebs-----------ite----------- an-----------d a-----------cqu-----------isi-----------tio-----------n o-----------f m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l