With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". for an injury that might have been caused by another. Our holding is consistent with analogous caselaw. In State v. Arends, for example, we held that a complete civil settlement of all claims in a suit between parties who are the defendant and victim in a related criminal matter precludes the state from seeking criminal restitution on behalf of that victim. 786 N.W.2d 885, 889-90 (Minn.App.2010), review denied (Minn. Oct. 27, 2010). The Arends holding implicitly recognizes the unity between civil damages and criminal restitution. And in a civil action for damages under circumstances involving a joint attack causing indivisible injuries on a single victim, the law is well settled in favor of joint and several liability. See Mathews v. Mills, 288 Minn. 16, 20, 178 N.W.2d 841, 844 (1970) (<HOLDING>); Wrabek v. Suchomel, 145 Minn. 468, 473, 177

A: holding that consecutive sentences were warranted because of the multiple separate and distinct criminal acts
B: holding that a forest preserve will be liable for injuries only in the case of willful and wanton negligence that proximately causes such injuries
C: holding that judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly
D: holding that multiple civil defendants are jointly and severally liable when their independent consecutive acts of negligence cause indivisible injuries to the plaintiff
D.