With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 45, 822 N.E.2d 748 (2005) (denying summary judgment based, inter alia, on expert testimony that parking lot had improper pitch). Consequently, no reasonable jury could conclude from the plaintiffs observations alone that the parking lot was designed or maintained in a defective condition. Plaintiffs photographs also provide him little solace. Notably, most of the photographs were taken in August, 2008, or later. The condition of the. parking lot four years after plaintiffs accident sheds no light on whether it was in a defective and unsafe condition in December, 2004. Although photographs taken soon after the accident show puddling, the existence of puddles, without more, could not lead a reasonable jury to conclude that the parking lot design was defective. See Athas, 904 F.2d at 81 (<HOLDING>). Because the plaintiff has failed to present

A: holding post office could not be liable to patron who fell on its property because there was no evidence that the wet spots on the post office platform resulted from a defect or unnatural condition
B: recognizing that a prosecutors office is an entity and that information in the possession of one attorney in the office must be attributed to the office as a whole
C: holding that an employee had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office even though the papers seized from the office were not the property of the employee
D: holding that the district where the defendant attorneys office was located was the proper venue because the defendants omissions related to their failure to communicate from their office in savannah the details of the ongoing case
A.