An ordinance of City makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a City street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., Parker, realizing that he must be in Bank before it closed at 2:00 p.m., and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a City street. Parker then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor, Ned, as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while Parker was still in Bank, Driver was driving down the street. Driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped Parker's car. Parker's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. Parker's car was severely damaged and Ned was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute."If Ned asserts a claim against Parker, the most likely result is that Ned will
recover, because Parker's action was negligence per se.  recover, because Parker's action was a continuing wrong which contributed to Ned's injuries.  not recover, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to Ned as a result of Parker's action.  not recover, because a violation of a city ordinance does not give rise to a civil cause of action
Question: An ordinance of City makes it unlawful to park a motor vehicle on a City street within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. At 1:55 p.m., Parker, realizing that he must be in Bank before it closed at 2:00 p.m., and finding no other space available, parked his automobile in front of a fire hydrant on a City street. Parker then hurried into the bank, leaving his aged neighbor, Ned, as a passenger in the rear seat of the car. About five minutes later, and while Parker was still in Bank, Driver was driving down the street. Driver swerved to avoid what he mistakenly thought was a hole in the street and sideswiped Parker's car. Parker's car was turned over on top of the hydrant, breaking the hydrant and causing a small flood of water. Parker's car was severely damaged and Ned was badly injured. There is no applicable guest statute."If Ned asserts a claim against Parker, the most likely result is that Ned will
A. recover, because Parker's action was negligence per se. 
B. recover, because Parker's action was a continuing wrong which contributed to Ned's injuries. 
C. not recover, because a reasonably prudent person could not foresee injury to Ned as a result of Parker's action. 
D. not recover, because a violation of a city ordinance does not give rise to a civil cause of action
Answer: