Phillip was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down the block, a mechanic negligently overinflated a tire he was intending to put onto Melissa's pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Melissa and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street and knocked Phillip down, injuring his knee. Phillip sued the mechanic. In applying the Palsgraf v$.$ Long Island Railroad decision to this case, Phillip would

Question $8$ options:

a$)$

win because the mechanic was negligent in overinflating the tire, which led to Phillip's injury.

b$)$

win based on negligence per se$.$

c$)$

lose because the court would apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

d$)$

lose because, although the mechanic's conduct was negligent toward Melissa, 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.