Early one morning Bradford sought to rent a car from Ugly Duck's car rentals to drive to a business meeting located 25 miles from the hotel where he was staying. The Ugly Duck's manager, Albert, asked when he expected to return the car, and Bradford said he would be back by noon. Albert had available only one car due to the high demand for the summer. Therefore, he rented Bradford a car with defective headlights. The headlights generally did not work. Without telling Bradford about the headlights, Albert rented him the car figuring that the car would be driven only in daylight and returned that afternoon. Bradford's meeting took much longer than expected, and he set out to return the car to Ugly Duck's car rental after dark. As he was driving, he discovered that the headlights did not work. A few minutes later a drunk driver, crossed over the center line of the road, and struck Bradford's car head on. Since neither car was equipped with air bags, both Driver and Bradford were severely injured. The jurisdiction follows the rule that a plaintiff's contributory negligence bars his recovery entirely. Bradford brought an action to recover for personal injuries against Driver. Driver conceded he was driving while intoxicated, but established at trial that Bradford had violated a state statute which made it illegal to drive with no headlights. Which of the following most accurately states the legal effect of this violation of statute?

Select one:

A.Bradford's violation of the statute must be ignored by the jury in determining liability in this case.

B.Bradford's violation of the statute is evidence, but not determinative, of the standard of care by which his conduct will be measured.

C.Bradford's violation of the statute raises a rebuttable presumption that he was contributorily negligent.

D.Bradford's violation of the statute constitutes contributory negligence per se.