Phillip was waiting for a bus at a bus stop. Across the street and down three blocks, a mechanic negligently overinflated a tire he was intending to put onto Marsha's pickup truck. The exploding tire injured Marsha and frightened a neighborhood dog, which ran down the street causing dogs to escape at the local animal sheiter miles away with the herd running miles to knock Phillip down, injuring his knee. Phillip sued the mechanic. In applying the Palsgraf v$.$ Long Island Railroad Co$.$ decision to this case, Phillip would

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 Marsha, it was not the proximate cause to Phillip's injury.