Final answer:
The terms listed relate to potential legal defenses in a negligence case where a hockey fan sues after being hit by a puck. They focus on the concepts of responsibility and fault, and the correct answer could involve one or more of these defenses.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question you're asking appears to be related to the field of Law, particularly to tort law concepts involving negligence and liability. Specifically, the terms mentioned refer to defenses that the hockey team's attorney might raise in response to being sued:
- Last clear chance - a doctrine that could be used to argue that the injured party had the last opportunity to avoid the harm and failed to do so.
- Proximate cause - relates to whether the defendant's actions are closely enough related to the injury to be held legally responsible for the damages.
- Contributory negligence - would suggest that J is partially to blame for his injury because of his own negligence.
- Comparative negligence - indicates that fault is shared between J and the hockey team, with damages awarded proportionally based on each party's degree of fault.
Regarding the options provided, the attorney's answer could potentially include one or more of these defenses depending on the specific circumstances of the case. However, based solely on the fact that J was struck by a flying hockey puck while watching a game, it's difficult to determine which defense would be most applicable without additional information.