2.5 pts Amahl is an incredibly intelligent 9-year-old child. He is top of his class and is poised to receive the coveted Little Einstein Award. Amahl is out shopping with his parents when he notices a worker on top of a ladder with wheels on it. Being a playful child, Amahl walks past several warning signs and pushes the ladder so that it starts rolling. As a result, the worker falls and injures both legs and his hip. Which of the following is a likely outcome should the worker decide to sue the child? Children under the age of 18 lack capacity, so the worker would be unsuccessful in winning a tort claim. Because of Amahl's knowledge and experience, as reflected in - among other things - his academic success, Amahl would be held liable under the subjective standard for a breach of duty to keep the worker's working conditions free from danger. Because Amahl is under age 18, his parents would be held responsible under respondeat superior. They should have known not to bring their child near a potentially dangerous work environment. O Amahl could be held liable under the Negligence Per Se Doctrine, which states that Amahl automatically committed negligence when he put the worker in danger. ..lahl would not be held liable because he did not intend to injure the worker