With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". on the Law of Torts § 135. 17 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 464 cmt. g; Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 32; Ellis, Tort Responsibility of Mentally Disabl S.E.2d 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971) (finding that plaintiff who had received treatment for mental disturbance should be held to reasonable person standard for injuries sustained during fall from seventh floor during an escape attempt because plaintiff was aware of the grave peril); Wright v. Tate, 156 S.E.2d 562, 565 (Va. 1967) (adopting the Restatement approach and holding that a plain tiff with some diminished mental capacity should be held to the reasonable person standard); see also Ellis, Tort Responsibility of Mentally Disabled Persons at 1092-96. 22 Stacy v. Jedco Constr., Inc., 457 S.E.2d 875, 879 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Birkner v. Salt Lake County, 771 P.2d 1053,

A: holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981
B: holding that mental capacity may be considered on issue of victims intent
C: holding that the total cost of repairs could be found to be a fair measure of the plaintiffs total damage
D: holding that an injured plaintiff with a diminished mental capacity that does not amount to total insanity can be found contributorily negligent but nonetheless should be held to a subjective standard of care
D.