With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". recanted his testimony to some extent, stating that it was hard to tell whether the riders and/or the truck had remained on their respective sides of the road. Another rider testified at his deposition that he was certain that Mr. Konitshek’s SUV extended beyond the center line. Still another testified that the SUV certainly remained on its side of the road the entire time. For purposes of this appeal, we will assume the facts most favorable to Plaintiffs’ argument. 4 . Admittedly, there is no indication in Keller v. Albright, 1 F.Supp.2d 1279, that the plaintiff there argued that the Utah standard for granting summary judgment in a negligence claim should apply. 5 . Even if the defendants have some burden to establish that the race was run in accorda 570, 574-75 (Utah Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>), with Macintosh v. Stoker Paving and Const.

A: holding that the admission of expert testimony was prejudicial where the testimony was pervasive
B: holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable
C: holding that expert testimony was not necessary in case involving claim that a center working with the developmentally disabled was negligent for allowing a resident to ride a swing without any safety devices designed to ensure that she would not fall off
D: holding that expert testimony was not necessary in a case involving allegations that a senior living center was negligent for failing to install a fire sprinkler system
D.