Astro developed a new synthetic liquid that could safely double the output of electrical power plants. He built a manufacturing plant unlike any other in the world capable of producing this liquid. A byproduct of the production of the liquid was a hazardous chemical that was not biodegradable in the environment. Astro buried the waste chemical in a depression on his land. Before doing so, Astro secured expert opinion, based on soil analysis, that led him reasonably to believe that the earth beneath the disposal site was impermeable, and that there was no danger of contaminating the underground waters. The chemical, nonetheless, seeped through the underlying soil strata, and was carried by the flow of percolating water to a well used by Herder to water his sheep, which he raised on an adjacent property. The chemical rendered the water in the well unfit for consumption by sheep. If Herder's sheep were harmed by drinking from the contaminated well, and Herder asserts a claim against Astro for damages to the sheep, which of the following facts, if established, would best aid Astro's case? Assume that the jurisdiction follows traditional contributory negligence rules.
A. Many companies converted their power plants so that they could utilize the synthetic liquid developed by Astro.
B. Herder did not do what a reasonable person would have done to prevent harm to his sheep after he learned that the well was contaminated. 
C. If he had exercised ordinary care, Herder would have discovered the contamination before his sheep were harmed.
D. Astro's plant was in place and in operation before Herder purchased his property.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
B