While driving at a speed in excess of the statutory limit, Dant negligently collided with another car, and the disabled vehicles blocked two of the highway's three northbound lanes. When Page approached the scene two minutes later, he slowed his car to see if he could help those involved in the collision. As he slowed, he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Thomas. Page, who sustained damage to his car and was seriously injured, brought an action against Dant to recover damages. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common law rules pertaining to contributory negligence. If Dant moves to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, should the motion be granted?
Yes, because it was Thomas, not Dant who collided with Page's car and caused Page's injuries.  Yes, if Page could have safely passed the disabled vehicles in the traffic lane that remained open.  No, because a jury could find that Page's injury arose from a risk that was a continuing consequence of Dant's negligence.  No, because Dant was driving in excess of the statutory limit when he negligently caused the first accident.
Question: While driving at a speed in excess of the statutory limit, Dant negligently collided with another car, and the disabled vehicles blocked two of the highway's three northbound lanes. When Page approached the scene two minutes later, he slowed his car to see if he could help those involved in the collision. As he slowed, he was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Thomas. Page, who sustained damage to his car and was seriously injured, brought an action against Dant to recover damages. The jurisdiction adheres to the traditional common law rules pertaining to contributory negligence. If Dant moves to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, should the motion be granted?
A. Yes, because it was Thomas, not Dant who collided with Page's car and caused Page's injuries. 
B. Yes, if Page could have safely passed the disabled vehicles in the traffic lane that remained open. 
C. No, because a jury could find that Page's injury arose from a risk that was a continuing consequence of Dant's negligence. 
D. No, because Dant was driving in excess of the statutory limit when he negligently caused the first accident.
Answer: