In the featured case podias v. mairs, the plaintiffs sued two passengers in a car driven by an alleged drunk driver who struck a motorcyclist. the trial court judge who initially examined the case a motion for a summary judgment. later, the appellate court that case. group of answer choices granted; affirmed granted; reversed and remanded did not grant; affirmed did not grant; reversed and remanded 3.

reversed and remanded

Explanation:

- In the drunk driving case

- judge discovered and concluded that they had no obligation to volunteer helping the person whose injury they were not responsible for and did not have an hand or part that they played in causing such an injury.

Plaintiff appealed

- Appellate or appeal court established that there was enough evidence for a jury to find defendants liable for negligence because they had aided & abetted Mairs' wrongful post-accident conduct by not acting reasonably under the circumstances to assist Podias, such as calling 911.

They should have foreseen this danger because:

(1) there is a risk of harm that may result from leaving lying in the middle of the road knowing that someone is incapable of helping themselves.

(2) failure of defendants to call for help or take measures that will help the plaintiff.

(3) if one is aware of all the risks and damage that will result from their inability to take action that will help they are liable for the harm caused .

Reversed means that a decision taken by the lower court is not accepted by a higher court .

Remanded means the higher court send back the case that they reject to the lower court to be continued further.

i'll anser so they can have brainliest (my doubleu key is broken)