There is a prior case decided by the supreme court of the state in which Gal filed her lawsuit in which the court determined that people who voluntarily participate in dangerous activities (in that case, skydiving) may not recover damages against the businesses who provide those dangerous activities, if the plaintiff can be said to have recognized and accepted the risks related to the activity. KAJ is arguing that the judge in Gal's case should employ the same reasoning and Gal should not recover any damages from KAJ, because KAJ had signs warning of the potential dangers associated with riding the ferris wheel posted at the entrance. Which of the following statements provides the best and most accurate analysis?

unless the judge determines that there is a difference between riding a ferris wheel and skydiving in terms of the dangers involved or the way the participants were notified of the risks involved in each, the doctrine of stare decisis would suggest that the court should rule in favor of KAJ

if the judge follows the doctrine of stare decisis, he absolutely must rule in favor of KAJ

consulting prior interpretations of a common law rule is only one tool to interpret the rule; the judge may also look to the rule's legislative history or simply rely on the plain meaning of the rule

the prior case has no practical relevance to Gal's case and so the judge should rule against KAJ for bringing it up