With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". company,] had an affirmative, non-delegable duty to take precautions against the possible and probable injuries around an excavation site constructed through its franchise or permission obtained from the state and local authority. This duty, being non-delegable, remains on the defendant irrespective of a contract...”). 49 See Barry v. Keeler, 322 Mass. 114, 127, 76 N.E.2d 158, 164 (1947). 50 See Williamson v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 265 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Mo. 1954). 51 See Felbrant v. Able, 80 N.J. Super. 587, 594, 194 A.2d 491, 495 (App. Div. 1963) (distinguishing between circumstances that were “disassociated” and associated with (or within the scope of) “the field controlled” by the franchise agreement). 52 See Bouziden v. Alfalfa Elec. Co-op., Inc., 2000 OK 50, 16 P.3d 450, 455-56 (<HOLDING>). 53 Barry v. Keeler, 16 N.E.2d at 164. 54 Cal.

A: recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977
B: holding that duty to investigate was not a predicate to demonstrating justifiable reliance under  523a2a discussing restatement second of torts  540 1976
C: recognizing restatement second of torts  428 but also discussing the inherently dangerous activities standard
D: recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law
C.