Adam's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by Basher. The accident was caused solely by Basher's negligence. Adam's car was still drivable after the accident. Examining the car the next morning, Adam could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that gasoline had dripped onto the garage floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank. Adam then took the car to Mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop, and arranged with Mechanic to repair the damage. During their discussion Adam neglected to mention the gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while Mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused a spark, igniting vapor and gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. Mechanic was severely burned. Mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against Adam and Basher. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure comparative negligence rule in place of the traditional common-law rule of contributory negligence. In this action, will Mechanic obtain a judgment against Basher? 
No, unless there is evidence that Basher was aware of the gasoline leak.  No, if Mechanic would not have been harmed had Adam warned him about the gasoline leak.  Yes, unless Mechanic was negligent in not discovering the gasoline leak himself.  Yes, if Mechanic's injury was a proximate consequence of Basher's negligent driving. 
Question: Adam's car sustained moderate damage in a collision with a car driven by Basher. The accident was caused solely by Basher's negligence. Adam's car was still drivable after the accident. Examining the car the next morning, Adam could see that a rear fender had to be replaced. He also noticed that gasoline had dripped onto the garage floor. The collision had caused a small leak in the gasoline tank. Adam then took the car to Mechanic, who owns and operates a body shop, and arranged with Mechanic to repair the damage. During their discussion Adam neglected to mention the gasoline leakage. Thereafter, while Mechanic was loosening some of the damaged material with a hammer, he caused a spark, igniting vapor and gasoline that had leaked from the fuel tank. Mechanic was severely burned. Mechanic has brought an action to recover damages against Adam and Basher. The jurisdiction has adopted a pure comparative negligence rule in place of the traditional common-law rule of contributory negligence. In this action, will Mechanic obtain a judgment against Basher? 
A. No, unless there is evidence that Basher was aware of the gasoline leak. 
B. No, if Mechanic would not have been harmed had Adam warned him about the gasoline leak. 
C. Yes, unless Mechanic was negligent in not discovering the gasoline leak himself. 
D. Yes, if Mechanic's injury was a proximate consequence of Basher's negligent driving. 
Answer: