this is a business law question please need help!!! please ALL answer questions!!!!

A defective tire on Rahm Emmanuel's car blows out, causing the car to swerve and hit a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk. The pedestrian is a scientist carrying a briefcase full of chemicals, which explodes upon impact. The explosion causes blowouts in the windows of the first three floors of the building the scientist was walking next to. On the third floor, an accountant is injured by the flying glass of his blown out window. Does the accountant have a case against the manufacturer of the tire? Yes, because without the tire failure, the accountant would not have been injured. O No, because the accountant does not have a contract with the tire manufacturer. Yes, because without the tire failure, the accountant would not have been injured. No, because the accountant does not have a contract with the tire manufacturer. Yes, because it was forseeable that the accountant could be injured by a vehicle's tire failure. No, because the tire failure is not a proximate cause of the accountant's injury. No, because without the tire failure, the accountant would not have been injured. Scrappy the Owl is flying a new drone that he got as a holiday gift. He is standing on the Kennesaw State campus green when he accidentally flies the drone way off campus and into the backyard of a local resident where it crushes a flower bed. The resident has a claim of against Scrappy. O private nuisance O trespass to personal property conversion O public nuisance trespass to realty Giselle is being sued by Tyra. Giselle wishes to use prove that Tyra voluntarily and unreasonably risked the harm that she suffered. This defense is known as the defense. superseding cause O pure comparative negligence O contributory negligence O modified comparative negligence O assumption of the risk