Jones, who was driving his car at night, stopped the car and went into a nearby tavern for a drink. He left the car standing at the side of the road, projecting three feet into the traffic lane. The lights were on and his friend, Peters, was asleep in the back seat. Peters awoke, discovered the situation, and went back to sleep. Before Jones returned, his car was hit by an automobile approaching from the rear and driven by Davis. Peters was injured. Peters sued Davis and Jones jointly to recover the damages he suffered resulting from the accident. The jurisdiction has a pure comparative negligence rule and has abolished the defense of assumption of risk. In respect to other issues, the rules of the common law remain in effect. Peters should recover 
nothing, if Peters was more negligent than either Davis or Jones.  nothing, unless the total of Davis's and Jones's negligence was greater than Peters's.  from Davis and Jones, jointly and severally, the amount of damages Peters suffered reduced by the percentage of the total negligence that is attributed to Peters.  from Davis and Jones, severally, a percentage of Peters's damages equal to the percentage of fault attributed to each of the defendants. 
Question: Jones, who was driving his car at night, stopped the car and went into a nearby tavern for a drink. He left the car standing at the side of the road, projecting three feet into the traffic lane. The lights were on and his friend, Peters, was asleep in the back seat. Peters awoke, discovered the situation, and went back to sleep. Before Jones returned, his car was hit by an automobile approaching from the rear and driven by Davis. Peters was injured. Peters sued Davis and Jones jointly to recover the damages he suffered resulting from the accident. The jurisdiction has a pure comparative negligence rule and has abolished the defense of assumption of risk. In respect to other issues, the rules of the common law remain in effect. Peters should recover 
A. nothing, if Peters was more negligent than either Davis or Jones. 
B. nothing, unless the total of Davis's and Jones's negligence was greater than Peters's. 
C. from Davis and Jones, jointly and severally, the amount of damages Peters suffered reduced by the percentage of the total negligence that is attributed to Peters. 
D. from Davis and Jones, severally, a percentage of Peters's damages equal to the percentage of fault attributed to each of the defendants. 
Answer: