With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". knowledge of a recurring danger can establish constructive notice, a substantial number of jurisdictions have held that “[a] defendant who has actual knowledge of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition can be charged with constructive notice of each specific reoccurrence of the condition.” Milano v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 73 A.D.3d 1141, 903 N.Y.S.2d 78, 79 (App. Div. 2010); see also Blair v. West Town Mall, 130 S.W.3d 761, 765-66 (Tenn. 2004) (“plaintiffs may prove that a premises owner had constructive notice of the presence of a dangerous condition by showing a pattern of conduct, a recurring incident, or a general or continuing condition indicating the dangerous condition’s existence”); Mahoney v. J.C. Penney Co., 1962- NMSC 086, 71 N.M. 244, 377 P.2d 663, 673 (1963) (<HOLDING>); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d

A: holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury
B: holding construction company had actual notice of dangerous condition that its employees created
C: holding that when a possessor knows that a dangerous condition frequently reoccurs plaintiffs had a right to go to the jury on the issue of defendants negligence even where plaintiffs could not show how long the condition remained on the stairs
D: holding that warrantless search as probation condition was a valid limitation to the defendants fourth amendment rights when defendant asserted the condition was not reasonably related to rehabilitation
C.