Question

18 multiple choice 1 point philip was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. across the street and down a 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 philip down, injuring his knee. philip sued the mechanic. in analyzing the palsgraf v. long island railroad co. decision to this case, philip would: win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, which led to philip’s injury. win based on negligence per se. win because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. lose because, although the mechanic’s conduct was negligent toward marsha, it was not a wrong in relation to philip, who was far away. the mechanic could not have foreseen injury to philip and therefore had no duty to him. 16 multiple choice 1 point in a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 30 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover: 70 percent of the damages. all of the damages. none of the damages. 30 percent of the damages.

Explanation:

For Question 15:

The case follows the principle from Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., which establishes that a defendant only owes a duty of care to foreseeable plaintiffs. The mechanic could not have foreseen injury to Phillip, who was far away, so there is no duty of care owed to him, meaning Phillip cannot win.

For Question 16:

In comparative negligence, a plaintiff recovers damages reduced by their percentage of negligence. If the plaintiff is 30% negligent, they receive 100% minus 30% of the total damages.

Answer:

1. 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.
2. 70 percent of the damages.