Michael went deer hunting with Nate. After seeing bushes move, Michael quickly fired his rifle at what he thought was a deer. However, Nate had caused the movement in the bushes and was seriously injured by the bullet. Nate survived and later sued Michael on the grounds that "Michael's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury."

a. Based on these facts, is Michael guilty of negligence? Your answer must include a definition of negligence and the essential elements of negligence.
b. Michael's attorney believes that if contributory negligence could be established, it would greatly influence the outcome of the case. Do you agree with the attorney? Your answer must include a definition of contributory negligence.
c. If Michael can establish comparative negligence on the part of Nate, would the outcome of the case be changed? Explain your answer.
d. Assume that Michael and Nate are hunting on farmland without obtaining permission from the owner. If Michael fell into a marshy pond covered by weeds and injured his back, would the property owner be liable for damages? Explain your answer.