Ahomeowner hired an arsonist to set fire to the homeowner's house so that the homeowner could collect the insurance proceeds from the fire. after pouring gasoline around the house, the arsonist lit the fire with his cigarette lighter and then put the lighter in his pocket. as the arsonist was standing back admiring his work, the lighter exploded in his pocket. the arsonist suffered severe burns to his leg. after finding out that the explosion was caused by a manufacturing defect in the lighter, the 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 the arsonist prevail? a. yes, because the lighter exploded because of a defect caused by a manufacturing error. b. yes, because the lighter was the proximate cause of the arsonist's injury. c. no, because the lighter was not being used for an intended or reasonably foreseeable purpose. d. no, because the arsonist was injured in the course of committing a felony by the device used to perpetrate the felony.