Serena was driving to meet some friends at a Toronto coffee shop one evening. As she got close to the coffee shop, one of the friends she was supposed to meet called her. She answered her cellphone, and while talking to her friend, she changed lanes without looking, intending to turn into the entrance to the complex where the coffee shop was located. In doing so, she cut off the driver in the other lane. Gabe, the other driver, quickly slammed on his brakes, but it was too late. Serena side-swiped him and both cars slammed into the bridge at the entrance to the complex. This bridge was the only entrance. The police and the paramedics arrived, but neither Serena nor Gabe were badly injured?each had only minor cuts and bruises. Both were very lucky, although there was significant damage to both cars. The bridge was also badly damaged, and was closed for repairs for a month due to structural weaknesses. Unfortunately, the coffee shop was also forced to close for a month, since none of the customers could get to it. Russ, the owner, faced a significant loss in his profits for the year, since not only did the shop have to close for the month required for the repairs, but it would also take a while for business to build back up again. Gabe wants to sue Serena for damaging his car and for causing his minor injuries. Russ wants to sue Serena for causing the loss of profits to his business.

What could allow Serena to argue contributory negligence in response to Gabe's lawsuit? Select one: O A. If Gabe had slowed down while she was changing lanes, thereby allowing her to side-swipe him O B. If Gabe had seen her but chose not to do anything O C. If Gabe had also been talking on a cellphone and was driving erratically O D. If Gabe had cut her off earlierIf Serena had been a professional driver on the job, would that have changed anything about the analysis of whether or not there was a negligence action available to Gabe? Select one: O A. Yes, Serena would then not have been liable because she was acting in the course of her duties O B. No, Serena would need to compensate Gabe for the injuries she caused O C. Yes, Serena would have been held up to the standard of a reasonable professional driver, which is higher than the layperson O D. No, Serena would still have to act to the standard of a reasonable personDoes Russ have an action in negligence against Serena as the cause of his loss of profits? Select one: O A. Yes, but due to policy reasons, he would not be able to pursue the action O B. No, Serena and Russ do not have a relationship of sufficient proximity that would warrant the extension of a duty of care O C. Yes, she caused him to lose profits O D. No, the harm caused to Russ' business was too remote to be connected to the car accident Serena causedDoes Gabe have an action in negligence against Serena? Select one: O A. Yes, Serena owes a duty of care to the other drivers on the road, breached that duty, and caused Gabe's injuries O B. Yes, talking on a cellphone while driving is now illegal and so she ought to pay for the injuries she caused while doing this O C. No, he has insurance to pay for the damage to his car and his own injuries and doesn't need Serena's money O D. No, even thought she owed a duty of care to other drivers on the road, Gabe also had a duty to be careful of other driversIf Russ was found to have an action of negligence against Serena, what negative repercussions might flow from that action? Select one: O A. Russ might not get the award all at once O B. It might open the possibility that a lot more people could sue Serena for damages stemming from the closing of the bridge O C. Russ might have to share a damages award with Gabe O D. Serena might not have the assets to cover the damage awards to both Gabe and Russ