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: | 362 Weeks Ago, 6 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:
Â
options:
1) Â Â Win because the mechanic was negligent and had knowledge of the danger he was creating.
2) Â Â 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.  Â
4) Â Â Lose because there was no foreseeable duty of care that extended to Pat from Mike's negligence.Â
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