In this scenario, the A&P mechanic who performs an engine overhaul is negligent due to the distraction of the phone call during the aircraft maintenance. His negligent conduct violates a federal aviation regulation, or negligence per se (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2015).For example, the mechanic fails to adhere to "14 CFR 43.13(a) requires persons performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance to "use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator" (Hamilton & Nilsson, 2015, p. 111). Not just the A&P mechanic, the IA inspector is also guilty of signing off the overhaul and approves the aircraft for return to service without noticing the oversight. He has a responsibility to be somewhat vigilant by carefully inspecting the mechanic's work, which he neglects to do. Overall, I think the mechanic, the foreman, and the FAA-certified repair station are all potentially legally liable for these damage and injuries. Hamilton and Nilsson (2015) pointed out that negligence is the most common form of tort involved in aircraft accident litigation (p.106).

"Please explain, under what legal principle does liability flow to both the employer and employee?"