To fight drug abuse, a state enacted a statute forbidding the selling of model airplane glue to anyone under the age of 18 except in small quantities in prepackaged model kits. Violation of the statute was penalized by fines or, in cases of multiple violations, possible imprisonment. The statute also required that all elementary and secondary schools licensed by the state provide comprehensive drug education programs. Neither the legislature nor the courts of the state have abolished the common law tort defense of assumption of the risk. The owner of a hobby shop in the state sold a large tube of airplane glue to a 15-year-old boy who reasonably appeared to be at least 18 years old. The boy had received drug education in his school, as mandated by the statute, including coverage of the dangers of glue sniffing. The boy understood the anti-drug instruction, but he wanted to experience it for himself. The boy sniffed the glue repeatedly and suffered permanent brain damage. If the boy's parents file suit on the boy's behalf against the store owner, for whom is the court likely to rule?
a. For the boy, because the store owner violated the statute when she sold the glue to the boy.
b. For the store owner, because the boy is not a member of the class of persons meant to be protected by the statute.
c. For the store owner, because the boy was aware of the danger when he sniffed the glue.
d. For the store owner, because the boy could reasonably have been mistaken for an 18-year-old by the store owner.