Question 29 0.5 pts 29. Ingrid was walking on a public sidewalk in San Jose, California when a window-unit air conditioner fell off of nearby building and hits Ingrid. Ingrid is injured. Which of the following statements is true? O Ingrid could likely sue on a theory of strict liability O Ingrid could likely sue on a theory of res ipsa loquitur O Ingrid could likely sue for battery O On these facts, Ingrid has no basis to sue O Ingrid could likely sue on a theory of stare decisiQuestion 30 30. The attractive nuisance doctrine exists in the law to protect ... O ... security guards at private property O ... private property owners O .. trespassing children on private property O .. hunters and animal trappers on private property O ... renters of private propertyQuestion 31 0.5 pts 31. Edward is terminating and laying off Emily, a 62 year old woman, from her job. On Emily's last day at her job at her exit interview with Edward, Edward tells Emily that, in order for Emily to receive her final paycheck, Emily must sign a severance agreement that includes a provision in which Emily waives any and all discrimination claims (including any claims based upon age) that Emily might have. Emily signs the severance agreement and receives her final paycheck from Edward. A week later, Emily files a lawsuit against Edward for wrongful termination, alleging age discrimination. Edward files a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that Emily's signed waiver precludes her lawsuit. Will the judge be likely to dismiss Emily's lawsuit? O No, because on these facts it is clear that Emily has a good case for age discrimination O No, because there was no valid consideration from Edward for the waiver O Yes, because Emily signed the waiver O Yes, if Emily's employment relationship with Edward was at will O Yes, because Emily at 62 is not old enough to bring an age discrimination lawsuit under the applicable lawQuestion 32 32. What is the difference between factual cause and proximate cause in a negligence lawsuit? O Proximate cause is whether the accident was foreseeable; factual cause is whether the defendant caused the harm to the plaintiff O Proximate cause is whether the defendant caused the harm to the plaintiff; factual cause is whether the accident was foreseeable O Proximate cause is whether the plaintiff had any role in causing his or her injuries; factual cause is whether the defendant caused the harm to the plaintiff O There is no difference O Proximate cause is whether the plaintiff was nearby the defendant when the negligence happened; factual cause is whether the defendant caused the harm to the plaintiff