With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Park had a duty to protect its tenants from a dangerous condition immediately adjacent to its land under the facts of this case. As a landlord, Angeles Park had a duty "to maintain the common areas of the premises in a reasonably safe condition for the tenants’ use.” Degel, 129 Wn.2d at 49. (citing Geise v. Lee, 84 Wn.2d 866, 529 P.2d 1054 (1975)). Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, however, imposes liability upon a landowner for harm caused "by a condition on the land.” Angeles Park did not own or operate the irrigation canal. No case in Washington directly addresses this issue. The majority of jurisdictions do not impose a duty upon landowners to protect people on their land from dangers on adjacent land. See Corcoran v. City of San Mateo, 122 Cal. App. 2d 355, 265 P.2d 102 (1953) (<HOLDING>). Accord Cousins v. Yaeger, 394 F. Supp. 595

A: holding a property owner had no duty to erect a fence to protect a lessees child from an adjacent river
B: holding authority to control limits duty to control
C: holding that a landlord has a duty of reasonable care over common areas or other areas over which the landlord has retained control
D: holding that landowners have no duty to erect a fence or barrier to prevent people from injuring themselves upon other peoples property due to conditions natural or artificial which may exist and over which one has no control
D.