Blake lives in a jurisdiction that applies joint and several liability along with the doctrine of contribution. He was involved in a very unfortunate motor vehicle accident. Tony hit Blake's new Mercedes in the rear just as Cathy crossed the center line and sideswiped him. Blake's car was severely damaged, and Blake suffered from whiplash for a few weeks. Blake sued both Tony and Cathy. It was determined at trial that both Tony and Cathy were negligent, that Blake was not negligent, that Tony was 60% responsible for Blake's injuries, that Cathy was 40% responsible for Blake's injuries, and that Blake's total damages were $100,000.

Assume Tony or his insurer pays the entire amount and then attempts to recoup amounts from Cathy. Could Cathy be held liable for any amounts?

A. Yes, she could be required to pay her proportional share under a contribution theory.

B. Yes, she could be required to pay her proportional share under an indemnification theory.

C. No, she could not be required to pay under either a contribution or an indemnity theory.

D. No, she could not be required to pay but only because she was less at fault.