7. Will the plaintiff prevail in his action against the hiker's estate?

The issue in this question is the negligence doctrine for rescuers. A rescuer is a foreseeable plaintiff as long as the rescue is not done recklessly. Therefore, a defendant (the «rescuee») is liable if he negligently puts himself or a third party in peril and the plaintiff (the «rescuer») is injured attempting a rescue. The rescuee, therefore, owes a duty of care to the rescuer because danger invites being rescued. If the defendant breached that duty by tortiously creating his own or another's peril, a negligence claim is possible so long as the other elements (causation and damages) are met and no other limitations apply (for example, if the rescuer caused his own injuries by attempting the rescue in a grossly negligent manner it will negatively affect the rescuer's recovery).

C is correct. The hiker is stated to have been «acting with reasonable care.» He breached no duty to the mountain climber who attempted a rescue. When the mountain climber was subsequently injured, the hiker's estate was under no legal obligation to pay, and the hiker's estate will prevail.

A is incorrect. This answer does not provide a basis for recovery against the hiker's estate. The mere fact that the plaintiff acted reasonably in attempting to rescue the hiker does not alter that the hiker did not breach any duty to the mountain climber. No other torts apply for these facts and answer choices.

B is incorrect. This answer is not relevant to whether the plaintiff can prevail against the hiker's estate. As a policy matter, it might be true that the law should not discourage attempts to assist persons in helpless peril. But that principle alone does not create a basis for the hiker's estate's liability. No such basis is presented on these facts with these answer choices.

D is incorrect. This answer choice is not relevant to whether the plaintiff can prevail against the hiker's estate. As explained above, there is no legal basis presented here that would sustain a cause of action by the plaintiff against the hiker's estate. That is true even if the plaintiff had succeeded in the rescue attempt — even if the plaintiff successfully rescued the hiker and was then suing the hiker instead of hiker's estate, there would still be no basis for recovery in law because hiker breached no duty to the plaintiff.

Similarly, the fact that the plaintiff failed does not change the outcome. For example, suppose the facts in the question were different and the hiker had created his peril by acting negligently, and the mountain climber then reasonably attempted a rescue but failed and the hiker died. Even though the rescue attempt failed, because the hiker in this example created his own peril, the hiker's estate would still be liable for the injuries the mountain climber sustained in the attempted rescue.