In a suit between the drivers of two cars involved in a collision, the plaintiff's attorney calls a witness to the stand. On direct examination, the witness testifies that, while walking down the street, she heard a horn sounding, looked up, and saw two cars enter an intersection and collide. On cross-examination, the defense attorney goes over the same ground with the witness. He asks her whether there was any broken glass on the pavement, to which she responds, "Yes, lots of it," and before the defense attorney can ask his next question, the witness blurts out, "They had to be going over 50!" The defense attorney moves to strike the statement. How should the court rule? Group of answer choices Not to strike, because the defense attorney "opened the door" to anything the witness might say about the accident. Strike it, as unresponsive to any question asked. Not to strike, because the statement accuses both drivers of going over 50, and is not prejudicial to only one side. Strike it, because the witness had no way of knowing how fast the cars were traveling