Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor's car, in Neighbor's garage and without his consent, when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si's life and Neighbor's car and garage. In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned

Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:

Si was in the act of siphoning gasoline from Neighbor's car, in Neighbor's garage and without his consent, when the gasoline exploded and a fire followed. Rescuer, seeing the fire, grabbed a fire extinguisher from his car and put out the fire, saving Si's life and Neighbor's car and garage. In doing so, Rescuer was badly burned

If the rescue asserts a claim against Si for personal injuries, rescuer will:

a. Prevail, because he saves  Si's life

b. Prevail, because Si was wnganged in controverting Neighbor's gasoline.

c. Not prevail, because rescuer knowingly assumed the risk.

d. Not prevail, because rescuer's action was not foreseeable consequence of Si's conduct.

c. Not prevail, because rescuer knowingly assumed the risk.

Explanation:

Although the recuer did a good deed and saved someone's life and someone else's possessions, he took on the wealthy he knew he would run if he got into the fire, as he did. In that case, we can say that Si is guilty of causing a fire, for the criminal actions he committed, but is not responsible for Rescuer's injuries. For this reason, we can consider the letter C as the correct answer.

18+220=238 fruits together

explanation:

but are you serious?

i dont think so i think its more a lot of people i know failed the first time

explanation: