The plaintiff Charlie and defendant Lindsay are co-owners of the limousine. Under the contract, both parties agree the plaintiff will temporarily solely operate the limo for working purposes. When the limo is not in use will be stored in the defendant's house. As usual, Charlie parking the limo in the driveway as usual. When Charlie parking the limo, he met Lindsay and her mother. They started a conversation about whether to park the limo outside regard to the current weather condition. Later, Charlie texted Lindsay to inform her the limo had left on the driveway with her approval. However, the message does not indicate that Lindsay was aware of or responded to the texts. The next day, an accident happened to the limo while kept at the defendant's house. A tree in the defendant's yard fell on the limo, causing it to be destroyed. Regarding the tree's condition, Lindsay's neighbor, Fred claimed before the incident he informed Lindsay that the tree was too large and could pose a risk, but she ignored him and refused his help. On the other hand, Lindsay provided a photo demonstrating that the tree's condition before the accident was healthy, with no signs of defect. The plaintiff believes the defendant is liable for the damage to the limo. The plaintiff sued the defendant for $15000 to recover half of the price of the Hummer limo. The law involved in this case is tort law. The specic rule of law applied here is negligence. To prove the defendant liable, it must be proven that the defendant was negligent, which resulted in limo damage