This same scenario is used for questions #$18,$ #$19,$ and #$20.$

Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick$-$up truck for her personal watercraft. She is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it$.$ On the way home, Jeanie stops at the automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently rear$-$ends Jeanie's pick$-$up$.$ The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. Which of the following is most likely true regarding whether Holly is the proximate cause of the bank burning?

Group of answer choices

Holly's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because cause in fact can be established.

Holly's actions were the proximate cause of the bank's burning because actual cause is present.

Holly's actions were not the proximate cause of the accident because actual causation cannot be established since it was foreseeable that gas can result in a fire.

Holly is not the proximate case of the accident because her actions were not the cause in fact of the accident.

Holly is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that Jeanie would have gas in the back of her pick$-$up truck that would result in such a fire.