© 2012 GOULD’S, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.11. A safety statute prohibited skateboarding in the public square, in order to cut down on the number of skateboarders who received injuries, such as broken bones. Nevertheless, Jeremy skateboarded in the town square, in violation of the safety statute. He wiped out several times, and incurred some bodily injury. The last time he wiped out, one of the wheels on his skateboard broke off. Jeremy left the wheel in the public square. Mary, who walked by six hours later on her way home from work, tripped over the wheel and broke her arm. When Jeremy heard of Mary’s accident, he asserted that he should be excused from liability, because three different people had kicked the wheel after Jeremy had left the public square. If Mary asserts only that Jeremy breached a duty of care to her through violation of a safety statute, will she succeed in a claim of negligence?A. No, because there were three intervening events, that would break Jeremy’s causal chain. B. Yes, because Mary’s injury was of the type that the safety statute was intended to protect against. C. No, because Mary did not establish that Jeremy breached a duty of care. D. Yes, because Jeremy’s asserted “excuse” is not viable.