A man went to see a play at the local theater operated by a local theater company. The man bought a ticket which assigned him to sit in Seat 24 in Row 30. When the man handed his ticket to the usher the usher glanced at the ticket and lead the man to what he believed was the appropriate seat. However, the usher mistakenly took the man to Seat 23 in Row 30. The man occupied Seat 23 in Row 30, failing to notice it was not the seat listed on his ticket. During the second act of the play the seat which the man was occupying suddenly collapsed, causing the man several injuries. A subsequent investigation failed to determine why the seat collapsed. If the man brings an action for negligence against the theater company, which of the following is the most accurate statement?
a. In order to prove breach of due care, the man must show that the usher acted unreasonably in leading him to the wrong seat.
b. Under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, the fact that the seat collapsed is sufficient to establish that the theater company breached its duty of care.
c. In order to prove that the theater company breached its duty of care, the man must demonstrate why the seat collapsed.
d. Because the investigation failed to determine why the seat collapsed, the man cannot prevail in a negligence action against the theater company.