49. The pedestrian will be able to recover from

B is correct. The issue in this question is what damages a plaintiff may recover. Traditionally, those include future harms that foreseeably result from the harm the defendant caused. The classic example of such harms is subsequent medical malpractice. For example, a defendant who collided with the plaintiff's car necessitating the plaintiff going to the hospital is liable for ordinary medical malpractice that occurs at the hospital while treating the plaintiff's car accident injuries. The same principle applies in this question. The defendant negligently injured a pedestrian, breaking her leg, and it is foreseeable that the plaintiff will subsequently be injured due to the impaired state defendant's injuries left her in (e.g. by slipping and falling when she otherwise would not have fallen). The plaintiff must still establish the other elements of negligence — duty, breach, actual causation, and damages — but those elements are on these facts as well. Thus, the driver is liable for the pedestrian's broken leg resulting from his negligent driving and also liable for the subsequent foreseeable harm, plaintiff tripping while using crutches.

A is incorrect. A correctly identifies that the supermarket is not liable for the pedestrian plaintiff's broken leg, but it misstates that the driver is not liable for the pedestrian's broken arm. Because the broken arm resulting from the pedestrian's slip due to her use of crutches, and because subsequent injuries stemming from the driver's injuries were foreseeable as described above, the driver is also liable for the pedestrian's broken arm.

C is incorrect. The supermarket is not liable for the broken leg. The supermarket had nothing to do with that injury, which occurred before the pedestrian fell in the supermarket. Thus, the supermarket is not the actual cause of that injury.

D is incorrect. This answer choice correctly identifies that the supermarket is not liable for the broken leg, but it incorrectly concludes that the driver is liable only for the broken leg. The supermarket's negligence is the factual and legal cause of only the broken arm. The supermarket, therefore, will have apportioned responsibility for the broken arm. On the other hand, the driver will be liable for all foreseeable consequences of his negligent driving, including the pedestrian's injuries from a fall sustained because of her previous injury from the driver.

Note that there is no answer choice identifying all liable parties. In other words, there is no answer choice that states the driver is liable for both the broken arm and broken leg, and that the supermarket is liable for only the broken arm. The correct answer choice, however, still correctly identifies the driver's liability, and it does not state that the pedestrian cannot recover from the supermarket — it makes no assertion about that possibility.