With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". call attention to apprehended danger, or demand that the car be stopped so that he could get out. The legal question is whether, under the circumstances, he acted with the care that a reasonably prudent man would have used under the circumstances. Who is to answer that question, the court or the jury? We believe it is for the jury to determine. Nelson, 259 N.Y. at 75-76, 181 N.E. 52 (applying, contributory negligence principles to .the passenger in a car); see also Brickell v. N.Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. Co., 120 N.Y. 290, 293, 24 N.E, 449 (1890), (“It is no,less the duty of the passenger, where he has the opportunity to do so, than of the driver, to learn of danger and avoid it if practicable.”); Hoag v. N. Y. Cent. & Hudson River R.R. Co., 111 N.Y. 199, 203, 18 N.E, 648 (1888) (<HOLDING>); Posner v. Hendler, 302 A.D.2d 509, 755

A: holding admissible a letter which a woman had purportedly written to a judge 2 days before her death stating that her husband had threatened her and she feared him where the defendant husband claimed she had threatened him
B: holding that the passenger in a horsedrawn carriage that was hit by a train was bound to look and listen she had no right because her husband was driving to omit some reasonable and prudent effort to see for herself that the crossing was safe
C: holding that a civilian employee injured when her automobile was hit by a military vehicle while she was driving on a road on the employers premises the military base to report to work sustained a compensable injury under the federal employees compensation act
D: holding that debtor who was separated from her husband and who testified that she would only return to the marital home if her husband vacated the house or died or if she was required to care for him or her adult son there or if the couple reconciled was an abandonment of the marital home as her homestead
B.