The correct answer is: (A) Grant the motion, because there is no evidence of negligence by the woman.

Because this was not an intentional tort, the only claim that the man can bring is a negligence claim. In such a claim, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant did not act reasonably and hence breached a duty to the plaintiff causing damages. In this case, the only evidence offered at trial is that there is a defect in the carburetor of the woman's automobile. There is no evidence that the woman knew of the defect or hired an incompetent mechanic to repair the vehicle. There is no evidence that she acted unreasonably. Therefore, there is no basis for the woman to be liable.

(B) Incorrect. Grant the motion because the inference of negligence is not strong enough to carry the burden of proof.

In fact, there is no evidence of the woman being negligent. The evidence points to a possible product liability case against the car manufacturer, who is not being sued in this question.

(C) Incorrect. Deny the motion, because the woman has a nondelegable duty to maintain the automobile.

To be liable under a nondelegable duty, there must still be negligence by someone--notably, the person to whom the defendant has attempted to delegate responsibility. There is no evidence that the woman attempted to delegate any duty or that the duty was breached.

(D) Incorrect. Deny the motion, because the man was injured by a defect in the automobile.

There is no basis upon which to hold the woman strictly liable for driving a car. The only evidence introduced points to potential liability by the manufacturer.