Final answer:
The woman could strongly defend against a negligence claim by citing Good Samaritan Law protection and potentially an exemption due to the emergency situation. Comparative negligence could also be a defense if the injured man was partially at fault for his injuries.Option A is the correct answer.
Step-by-step explanation:
The case presented involves a man who has sustained permanent partial paralysis due to the actions of a woman who attempted to help him after a car accident. In building a defense against the negligence claim, the woman could assert the Good Samaritan Law protection. The Good Samaritan Law is designed to protect individuals who voluntarily assist those in need during an emergency. By offering legal immunity to rescuers, it encourages bystanders to render aid without fear of being held liable for unintentional injury.
An additional strong defense might be an exemption from liability due to the emergency circumstances of the accident. This exemption recognizes the chaotic and unpredictable nature of emergencies, allowing some leeway in the standard of care expected of rescuers.
Comparative negligence could also be a defense if the injured man's actions contributed to his own injuries. However, this would depend on the specifics of the case, such as whether the injured man failed to wear a seatbelt or drove recklessly.
While medical malpractice insurance coverage provides financial protection to healthcare professionals in cases of negligence, it does not typically apply to lay rescuers acting in emergency situations and thus may not be a strong defense in this context.