Ellen was injured when she was struck by a car driven by Matthew. At the time, Ellen was crossing the street and Matthew entered the intersection and not paying attention to the crosswalk while he was on the telephone, but the light was still yellow. Ellen sustained substantial injuries and sued Matthew for negligence. At trial, Matthew testified that Ellen caused the accident because Ellen was crossing the street while the light was still yellow in Matthew's favor. Which of the following is Matthew's best defense?

A.Contributory negligence of Ellen

B.None of the answers are correct.

C.Strict liability against Jennifer

D.Superseding negligence of Ellen

Melissa was a bored housewife so she decided to get drunk. She did not have any alcohol or drugs in the house. She found some glue and sniffed the glue until she passed out. The glue container had a warning: "Do not sniff the glue because it can cause serious illness, respiratory failure and brain damage!" Melissa saw but ignored the warning. After Melissa woke up, she became violently ill and was rushed to the hospital where she was admitted for a three-day stay. Upon her release from the hospital, Melissa sued the glue manufacturer on a products liability cause of action. What should be the result of this case?

A.Melissa should win because glue is a mass-produced product subject to strict liability.

B.Melissa should lose because she was comparatively negligent.

C.Melissa should win because she did not fully understand the potential dangers of sniffing glue.

D.Melissa should lose because she disregarded the warning.