Sandra led a lawsuit seeking money damages for emotional distress, aggravation of a pre-existing heart condition, and a resulting heart attack she claimed was caused by insulting language from a cashier at Food 4 All Stores. Specically, Sandra alleged that after she asked a cashier the price of rutabaga, he replied by stating, \"If you want to know the price, you'll have to nd out the best way you can . . . by the way, you stink to me.\" She claimed the language was malicious or grossly reckless and said with intent to inict great mental and emotional injury to her. In her lawsuit, against the cashier and the market, the likely result will be: 0 No answer text provided. 0 A. Sandra should lose because the statement about Sandra stinking was only an opinion, and no reasonable person would consider it to be true. 0 B. Sandra should win because she was an \"egg shell\" plaintiff who had a pre-existing condition, and the statement actually triggered severe emotional distress and a heart attack. 0 C. The cashier and market should lose, because it is reasonably foreseeable that saying a customer stinks could cause a person with a pre-existing condition like Sandra to suffer a heart attack and severe emotional distress. O D. The cashier and market should win, because a reasonable person hearing the comment would not consider the comment about stinking so outrageous as to result in a severe emotional reaction and a heart attack. Assume the same facts as in No. 7, above, but instead of having said that Sandra should gure out the price on her own and that she \"stinks,\" the cashier said, \"You cheap honkey. You should be smart enough to gure it out on your own.\" What is the most accurate statement about Sandra's lawsuit? 0 No answer text provided. 0 A. Sandra should lose because the statements made about Sandra was only a rude opinion, and no reasonable person would consider them to be true. 0 8. Sandra should win because she was an \"egg shell\" plaintiff who had a pre-existing condition, and the statements actually triggered severe emotional distress and a heart attack. 0 C. The cashier and market should lose, because it is reasonably foreseeable that the words used by the cashier could cause a person with a pre-existing condition like Sandra to suffer a heart attack and severe emotional distress. O D. The cashier and market should win, because a reasonable person hearing the statements would not consider the comments to be so outrageous as to result in a severe emotional reaction and a heart attack