6. Julie was on an early morning bicycle ride along Euclid Street, a tree-lined street that was very curvy. Julie often rode this stretch. When riding that way, she would keep her head down much of the time, only looking up every so often to check ahead of her for other cyclists, joggers, and parked cars. This is a common way for cyclists to ride. At one point, she looked up, and seeing no parked cars, bicycles, or joggers, lowered her head again. Less than 10 seconds later, Al, a jogger, emerged from a side street and turned onto Euclid Street about a hundred feet in front of Julie. Al began running along the side of the street, a couple of feet from the curb. Julie was traveling much faster than Al, and caught up to him in about 15 seconds. Julie never saw Al, however, and Al did not know Julie was coming from behind. Julie's bike struck Al, causing him injury when he fell, and further injury when he was struck almost immediately by a car. Al sues Julie for negligence. In response, Julie has asserted the doctrine of assumption of risk. Which of the following statements is most likely correct?
A. Because being struck by a cyclist is an inherent risk of jogging, Julie owed no duty of reasonable care toward Al to take precautions to avoid that risk. Al will therefore recover nothing.
B. Because being struck by a cyclist is an inherent risk of jogging, Julie owed no duty of reasonable care toward Al to take precautions to avoid that risk. However, Julie has violated her duty not to act willfully or recklessly. Therefore, Julie will be fully liable for the harm she caused.
C. Even if Julie negligently struck Al, Al assumed the risk because being struck by a cyclist is an inherent risk of jogging. Al's recovery will therefore be reduced by the degree to which Al's assumption of risk overcomes Julie's negligence.
D. Al did not assume the risk.