Homeowner hired Arsonist to set fire to Homeowner's house so that Homeowner could collect the insurance proceeds from the fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, Arsonist lit the fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. As Arsonist was standing back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. Arsonist suffered severe burns to his leg. Arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict product liability. Under applicable law, the rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions. Will Arsonist prevail? 
Yes, if the lighter exploded because of a defect caused by a manufacturing error.  Yes, if Arsonist can establish that the lighter was the proximate cause of his injury.  No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose.  No, because Arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used to perpetrate the felony.
Question: Homeowner hired Arsonist to set fire to Homeowner's house so that Homeowner could collect the insurance proceeds from the fire. After pouring gasoline around the house, Arsonist lit the fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. As Arsonist was standing back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. Arsonist suffered severe burns to his leg. Arsonist brought an action against the manufacturer of the lighter based on strict product liability. Under applicable law, the rules of pure comparative fault apply in such actions. Will Arsonist prevail? 
A. Yes, if the lighter exploded because of a defect caused by a manufacturing error. 
B. Yes, if Arsonist can establish that the lighter was the proximate cause of his injury. 
C. No, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose. 
D. No, because Arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used to perpetrate the felony.
Answer: