At a presentation for undergraduate students, a lecturer explained that even a small quantity of potassium metal can react explosively when exposed to water, igniting with purple flames and ricocheting wildly across the surface of the water. He showed the students a small demonstration of this reaction with a tiny fragment of potassium in a large beaker, and then explained, "While this reaction is fascinating to observe, none of you should attempt to recreate this effect outside of a controlled laboratory setting, as this reaction can be dangerous and difficult to control." Inspired by the presentation, a student broke into a lab on campus and stole a large quantity of potassium metal and put it in a lake on campus to simulate a fireworks display. The ensuing explosive reaction spread across the entire lake, causing massive property damage and injuring a professor who was feeding ducks by the lake. The professor can establish that but for the lecturer's demonstration, the student would never have thought to put the potassium in the lake. The applicable jurisdiction has adopted a pure several liability theory of recovery.
Assuming that the professor has a valid claim against the student for negligence, is the professor likely to prevail in an action against the lecturer?
Answers:
A. No, because the lecturer neither authorized nor encouraged the student's negligent conduct.
B. No, because the student was not an employee of the lecturer.
C. Yes, because the lecturer's demonstration gave the student this idea, making him a but-for cause of the professor's injuries.
D. Yes, but only for the lecturer's proportionate share of the professor's damages.