The Answer is : B.

Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the car dealership is liable for the negligence of any one of the four employees. Since the inference is created that the door closed because a button was in fact pushed by an employee (res ipsa loquitur , the thing speaks for itself), this likely is enough to hold the dealership liable. Therefore, the man will probably recover, and choice (B) is the correct answer.

Choice (A) is incorrect because closing the door is not an ultra-hazardous activity, so there is no basis for strict liability.

Choice (C) is incorrect because the man is not a licensee; there was some economic benefit to be derived by the dealership from the presence of the man, so the man is likely an invitee. Even if he were a licensee, the harm caused to the man was not due to any condition of the premises; it was due to an act of negligence. The jurisdictions that make distinctions between licensees, business invites, and trespassers, only apply these distinctions where the harm to the licensee is caused by the condition of the property. So even if the man was a licensee, since the harm was caused by an act of negligence, the dealership would still be held liable. Therefore, choice (C) is incorrect.

Choice (D) is incorrect because for the man to have assumed the risk, it must be shown that he knowingly placed himself in a position of danger. There was no such knowledge and acceptance of danger here.

Choice (C) is incorrect because the additional liability of the rival team would not relieve the rival player of liability.