Answer A is incorrect. Since it appears that Turner’s violation of the walking only on sidewalks ordinance was excused, it has no compulsory legal effect on the issue of whether Turner was contributorily negligent in walking into the street to bypass the boxes which obstructed his path. The jury would be permitted to conclude, based on all the circumstances, that a reasonable person in Turner’s situation would also have walked into the street, and that Turner’s action thus did not contribute to his injuries in any legally cognizable way. Since A states that Turner’s violation of the statute would bar his recovery as a matter of law, it is incorrect.

Answer B is incorrect. Under certain circumstances, even where a plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence, he may still recover from a negligent defendant if the defendant had the “last clear chance” to avoid the injury. The doctrine of last clear chance arises only when the plaintiff has been found to have negligently contributed to his injury, and provides a basis for nevertheless imposing liability on the negligent defendant. Since Turner may or may not have been guilty of contributory negligence (depending upon the jury’s consideration of all the circumstances), it is inaccurate to say that Turner will not recover unless Cabbie had an opportunity to avoid the collision even after Turner placed himself in peril. For this reason, C is a superior answer.

Answer D is incorrect. Turner’s violation of the statute by walking into the street has no mandatory effect on the issue of contributory negligence, as indicated above, but it remains a relevant consideration in assessing Cabbie’s liability to Turner. If the jury concluded that a reasonable person in Turner’s situation would not have taken the risk of walking into the street to bypass the pile of boxes obstructing the sidewalk, then Turner was guilty of contributory negligence, and may be barred from recovery. Thus, D is inaccurate in stating that Turner’s action is not relevant.