After picking up a load of hazardous chemical waste, a truck driver for a waste management company set out on the road to his next stop. however, he had failed to secure the latch on the back panel of the truck. consequently, the panel opened while the truck was on the road, and a metal canister full of chemical waste fell onto the road. a car struck the canister, causing the car to veer off the road and injure the driver. the driver filed suit against the company for his injuries. the jurisdiction in which the above events took place has adopted a rule of partial comparative negligence. at trial, the driver of the car admitted that he had momentarily taken his eyes off the road to look at his speedometer. when he had looked up again, the canister was there and he could not stop in time. the jury found that the company, through its truck driver, had acted willfully and wantonly and was 90% at fault, while the driver of the car was 10% at fault. the driver filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, seeking recovery for 100% of his damages. if the judge grants the motion, what is the most likely reason? a a plaintiff's comparative negligence is not taken into account in cases of willful and wanton conduct by the defendant. b a state ordinance mandating motorists to stay within the posted speed limit requires as a matter of law an occasional glance at the speedometer. c the company was more than 50% at fault. d the company was engaged in an abnormally dangerous activity.