Question

(Business Law)

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:

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.

Answer 1

Answer: 4) Lose because there was no foreseeable duty of care that extended to Pat from Mike’s negligence

Explanation:

In order to prove proximate cause in negligence law suit, the injury to the plaintiff should be foreseeable to the defendant. If the harm is not foreseeable, there is no duty of care towards the plaintiff. Here while negligently over-inflating the tire, Mike could foresee the harm that may happen to the people around him. But Pat was at the bus stop and Mike was present across the street and down the block. The injury to Pat through the pit bulls is not foreseeable to Mike. Hence Mike does not owe a duty of care towards Pat and Pat would lose. Mike has the knowledge of danger he was creating for the people near him but not for Pat. The owner is not liable for the injuries caused by domestic animals like dog if he was not negligent in handling the animal. Pit bull is a dangerous dog but the dogs were set free due to tire explosion and not due to negligence. Pat cannot win based on strict liability for walking pit bulls. Mike’s insurance is not a factor in determining liability for negligence. Hence other options are wrong and the correct answer is option 4.