59. Perry, an avid hiker, negligently wears very thin-soled shoes, which are inadequate protection for the sharp stones on the mountain trail that he plans to navigate. About halfway up the trail, Perry badly gashes his foot, and passes out in the middle of the trail from lack of blood. Donna, riding a trail bike, arrives at the same point in the trail, sees Perry, negligently believes that she (Donna) has enough room on the trail to get by Perry without hitting him, and because of her miscalculation runs over Perry’s foot, crushing it. Perry sues Donna for the crushed foot. Donna raises the defense that Perry’s contributory negligence was the proximate cause of Perry’s injury, since if Perry had worn proper shoes, he would never have gashed his foot, would therefore not have been lying in the middle of the trail unconscious, and could not have been run over by Donna. The jurisdiction follows the common-law approach to contributory negligence.

(a) What doctrine should Perry assert to rebut Donna’s defense? _________________

(b) May Perry recover? _________________