With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Nev. 412, 537 P.2d 321 (1975); Mitchell v. Ridgway, 77 N.M. 249, 421 P.2d 778 (1966); Kelly v. Willis, 238 N.C. 637, 78 S.E.2d 711 (1953); Burnett v. Rice, 39 Ohio St.3d 44, 529 N.E.2d 203 (1988); Kathren v. Olenik, 46 Or.App. 713, 613 P.2d 69, 75 (1980); Watzig v. Tobin, 292 Or. 645, 642 P.2d 651 (1982); Reed v. Clark, 277 S.C. 310, 286 S.E.2d 384 (1982); Higgins v. Vinson, 549 S.W.2d 161 (Tenn.App.1976); Beck v. Sheppard, 566 S.W.2d 569 (Tex.1978); Rhiness v. Dansie, 24 Utah 2d 375, 472 P.2d 428 (1970); Rice v. Turner, 191 Va. 601, 62 S.E.2d 24 (1950); Dawson v. Woodson, 180 W.Va. 307, 376 S.E.2d 321 (1988); Hinkle v. Siltamaki, 361 P.2d 37 (Wyo.1961). The rules regarding negligence in such situations are the same as in ordinary negligence 190 Cal.Rptr. 729 (App.Dep’t Super.Ct.1983) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. Hardy, 70 Cal.App.2d 6, 160 P.2d

A: holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated
B: holding that the plaintiffs evidence that the ranchers cows had escaped several times over the past 10 years constituted sufficient evidence for jury to properly find simple negligence and to award compensatory damages where the plaintiffs sustained damages when their car collided with a cow owned by the defendant
C: holding that plaintiffs own testimony that he was embarrassed and humiliated by defendants conduct was sufficient to support compensatory damages award
D: holding that nominal damages award was appropriate where the evidence supporting the damages was speculative
B.