Henry rаked up numerоus deаd, dry leаves that had fallen оn his yard and set fire tо the pile, even though the wind was blowing at 15-20 miles per hour that day, and a county ordinance made it unlawful to burn leaves on any day when the wind speed exceeded 10 miles per hour. After Henry went into his house, the wind whipped the burning leaves into the air and deposited some of them, still burning, on the wood-shingled roof of a neighboring house, setting the house on fire. Dax was passing by and saw the burning roof of the neighbor’s house. Dax pulled over, got out of his car and ran across the street toward the neighbor’s yard so that he could warn the occupants of the house. Dax was struck by a paramedic’s vehicle just arriving in response to a telephone report of the fire. Dax brought an action against Henry to recover for the injuries he suffered from being struck by the emergency vehicle.How should the court rule in this action?
Celiа left her cаr with Mike the Mechаnic tо have repair wоrk dоne. After completing the repairs, Mike took the car out for a test drive and was involved in an accident that caused damages to Pauline. A statute imposes liability on the owner of an automobile for injuries to a third party that are caused by the negligence of any person driving the automobile with the owner’s consent. The statute applies to situations of this kind, even if the owner did not specifically authorize the mechanic to test-drive the car. Pauline sued Celia and Mike jointly for damages arising from the accident. In that action, Celia cross-claims to recover from Mike the amount of any payment Celia may be required to make to Pauline. The trier of fact determined that the accident was caused solely by negligent driving on Mike’s part, and that Pauline’s damages were $100,000.In this action, what is the proper outcome?