Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as a passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.If the jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence and Spouse asserts a claim against Cross, Spouse will
recover in full for her injuries, because Motorist, who was driving the car in which she was riding, was not himself at fault.  recover a proportion of her damages based on the respective degrees of her negligence and that of Cross. not recover, because but for the failure of the brakes the collision would not have occurred.  not recover, because she was negligent and her negligence continued until the moment of impact.
Question: Motorist arranged to borrow his friend Owner's car to drive for one day while Motorist's car was being repaired. Owner knew that the brakes on his car were faulty and might fail in an emergency. Owner forgot to tell Motorist about the brakes when Motorist picked up the car, but Owner did telephone Spouse, Motorist's wife, and told her about them. Spouse, however, forgot to tell Motorist. Motorist was driving Owner's car at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit, with Spouse as a passenger. Another car, driven by Cross, crossed in front of Motorist at an intersection and in violation of the traffic signal. Motorist tried to stop, but the brakes failed, and the two cars collided. If the brakes had been in proper working order, Motorist could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Motorist and Spouse were injured.If the jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence and Spouse asserts a claim against Cross, Spouse will
A. recover in full for her injuries, because Motorist, who was driving the car in which she was riding, was not himself at fault. 
B. recover a proportion of her damages based on the respective degrees of her negligence and that of Cross.
C. not recover, because but for the failure of the brakes the collision would not have occurred. 
D. not recover, because she was negligent and her negligence continued until the moment of impact.
Answer: