Sharon went deer hunting with John. After seeing bushes move, Sharon quickly fired her rifle at what she thought was a deer. However, John caused the movement in the bushes and was seriously injured by the bullet. John survived and later sued Sharon on the grounds that "Sharon's negligence was the proximate cause of the injury." A. Based on the above facts, is Sharon guilty of negligence? Your answer must include a definition of negligence and the essential elements of negligence. (6 marks) B. Sharon's attorney believes that if contributory negligence could be established, it would greatly influence the outcome of the case. Do you agree with Sharon's attorney? Your answer must include a definition of contributory negligence. (5 marks) C. If Sharon can establish comparative negligence on the part of John, would the outcome of the case be changed? Explain your answer. (4 marks) D. Assume that Sharon and John are hunting on farmland without obtaining permission from the owner. If Sharon fell into a marshy pond covered by weeds and injured her back, would the property owner be liable for damages? Explain your answer. (5 marks) (Total 20 marks)