The above is not what happened in Lynch v. Fisher, because if the driver of the truck could have been more careful by parking the truck off the road then the accident could not have occurred. Since everyone ought to be responsible for his actions, the driver of the truck through his insurance should have been held responsible. However, Gunter’s actions cannot be held responsible for the wounds that were suffered by the plaintiff because Gunter was in a delirium that was caused by the accident. Although Gunter should have been more careful by driving carefully, he could not have caused an accident if the truck was not parked in the middle of the road.
Mental anticipation of risk should play a critical role when deciding on the proximate cause of any accident. This is because a person may do something that s/he does not know whether it can cause an accident.
The actions of the guard did not pose any risk to Palsgraf because he did not know what was in the package. In his mind, the package was harmless and could not hurt anybody. On the other hand, in the case of Lynch v. Fisher, the truck knew that parking the truck in the middle of the road had a very high possibility of causing an accident (Steenson, 2009).
In the case of Lynch v. Fisher, it is of paramount importance to note that the state of mind of Mr. Gunter, which was caused by the accident, led to him injuring an innocent person. If the accident had not occurred, which was caused by the negligence of the truck driver, and then Gunter would not have shorted the plaintiff. However, since the truck driver caused the accident, the plaintiff chose to sue the insurance company of the truck because the truck was the proximate cause of the accident (Surhone, Timpledon, & Marseken, 2010).
Comparing these circumstances to what happened in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.; one notes that the proximate cause of the accident could not be related to the state of mind of the guard. The acts of the guard did not risk the life of the plaintiff because he did not know what the package contained.
Although one should be liable for anything that s/he does, it is worth noting that the guard in Palsgraf cannot be held liable for causing the injury that the plaintiff sustained because he did what he did to save the life of a man whom he thought was at risk (Larson, 2003).
These are just excerpts of essays for you to view. Please click on Order Now for custom essays, research papers, term papers, thesis, dissertations, case studies, and book reports.
Get custom academic writing on Lynch v. Fisher by clicking “Order Now”