Diggers Construction Company was engaged in blasting operations to clear the way for a new road. Diggers had erected adequate barriers and posted adequate warning signs in the vicinity of the blasting. Although Paul read and understood the signs, he entered the area to walk his dog. As a result of the blasting, Paul was hit by a piece of rock and sustained Paul was hit by a piece of rock and sustained head injuries. The jurisdiction follows the traditional common-law rules governing the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and last clear chance. In an action by Paul against Diggers to recover damages for his injuries, Paul will 
not prevail, if Diggers exercised reasonable care to protect the public from harm.  not prevail, because Paul understood the signs and disregarded the warnings.  prevail, because Paul was harmed by Diggers's abnormally dangerous activity.  prevail, unless Paul failed to use reasonable care to protect himself from harm. 
Question: Diggers Construction Company was engaged in blasting operations to clear the way for a new road. Diggers had erected adequate barriers and posted adequate warning signs in the vicinity of the blasting. Although Paul read and understood the signs, he entered the area to walk his dog. As a result of the blasting, Paul was hit by a piece of rock and sustained Paul was hit by a piece of rock and sustained head injuries. The jurisdiction follows the traditional common-law rules governing the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and last clear chance. In an action by Paul against Diggers to recover damages for his injuries, Paul will 
A. not prevail, if Diggers exercised reasonable care to protect the public from harm. 
B. not prevail, because Paul understood the signs and disregarded the warnings. 
C. prevail, because Paul was harmed by Diggers's abnormally dangerous activity. 
D. prevail, unless Paul failed to use reasonable care to protect himself from harm. 
Answer: