As a result of Baker driving too fast for slippery conditions caused by a snowstorm, he lost control of his car and smashed into a power pole in a residential neighborhood, knocking the pole down and disrupting electric service for 30 minutes to 300 homes in the immediate area. Peters lived in one of these homes. She is a day-trader in stocks (i.e., she buys and sells stocks, typically on a daily basis, using the internet to execute buy and sell orders). As a result of the disruption in her electric service, she was unable to close out a position (i.e., execute a sell order with regard to stocks she has earlier purchased) resulting in a $3,500 loss (because the stock price had dropped in the 30-minute period she was without power). She has sued Baker claiming that her losses are a result of Baker's negligence. If you were Baker, which of the following would be the best argument to make in your own defense? A. There is no actual causation in fact and, therefore, there is no proximate cause (legal cause). B. There is no proximate cause (legal cause) because the losses suffered by Peters were not reasonably foreseeable. C. Peters' contributory negligence exceeded that of Baker because she failed to have a back-up power source (e.g., a battery or generator) which would have powered her computer thus permitting the trade D. Baker was not negligent because the snowstorm was a superseding cause of the accident.