Liz sued Conner, seeking personal injuries and property damage in the amount of $100,000 for Conner's negligence in causing a collision with a car driven by Liz. Liz lost, with the jury expressly finding that Conner was not negligent. Thereafter, Pam (a pedestrian walking along the street when he saw the accident) suffered back injuries when she attempted to extricate Liz from the latter's vehicle. Pam sued Conner, claiming Conner negligently caused the accident with Liz's car, and was therefore responsible for Pam's personal injuries. In the latter action, Conner made a motion to dismiss based upon the decision rendered in Liz's earlier lawsuit. The court: Question 17Select one: a. May grant Conner's motion, because it has discretion to determine if it will apply collateral estoppel principles. b. Must grant Conner's motion, because Pam's action is barred under res judicata principles. c. Should deny Conner's motion, because it may not apply collateral estoppel in the context of the facts presented. d. Should deny Conner's motion, only if the concept of mutuality of estoppel is not applied in this jurisdiction