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 Parker asserts a claim against Driver for damage to Parker's automobile, the most likely result is that Parker will
recover, because the purpose of the ordinance is to provide access to the fire hydrant.  recover, because Driver's negligence was later in time than Parker's act of parking.  not recover, because Parker was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.  not recover, because Parker's action in parking unlawfully was a continuing wrong. 
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 Parker asserts a claim against Driver for damage to Parker's automobile, the most likely result is that Parker will
A. recover, because the purpose of the ordinance is to provide access to the fire hydrant. 
B. recover, because Driver's negligence was later in time than Parker's act of parking. 
C. not recover, because Parker was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. 
D. not recover, because Parker's action in parking unlawfully was a continuing wrong. 
Answer: