Berger, a firefighter, responded to a chemical boil- over at Lipson’s chemical manufacturing plant, the boil- over having been caused by Lipson’s negligence. When Berger arrived on the scene, he asked whether any toxic chemicals were involved and was told there were none. Actually, toxic chemicals were involved, and Berger was injured when he attempted to control the boil- over. In response to Berger’s suit for damages, Lipson argued that a person, such as a firefighter, who engages in a hazardous activity in the normal course of duty, assumes the risk of danger and should be barred from recovery for injuries. Should the court accept this line of reasoning?