$($B$1-3)$ Rodney drove down Main Street while he was drunk. He lost control of his car and ran directly into a stop sign. Jennifer witnessed the accident while looking out a window on the second floor of the nearby office building where she works. Jennifer is not related to Rodney, but she was so upset by what she saw that she suffered a heart attack. To get compensation for the harm she endured, Jennifer sues Rodney. She alleges that Rodney$$s drunk driving was an act of negligence that caused her heart attack Is Jennifer likely to win her negligence case against Rodney?

Yes, if she can show that she wouldn$$t have suffered the heart attack if she hadn$$t seen Rodney hit the stop sign

Yes, because whenever someone acts carelessly, he or she is liable for every injury that results to anyone, regardless of how remote the causal relationship is between the careless act and the injury.

No$,$ because Jennifer was too far from Rodney to have been at risk of being hit by his car, and her heart attack was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Rodney$$s drunk driving.

No$,$ because drunk drivers are an unavoidable part of modern life