With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claims as indistinguishable. {32} Under New Mexico case law, we are not to interpret the word “landlocked” so literally and absolutely as to mean that there exists no possibility of gaining access. No New Mexico case requires such a literal, absolute rule. To the contrary, the controlling view is that of “reasonable necessity.” Venegas v. Luby, 49 N.M. 381, 387, 164 P.2d 584, 587 (1945) (“The basis for an easement by implication must be reasonable necessity . . . the English rule of absolute necessity being in this state modified.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Hurlocker, 118 N.M. at 31-32, 878 P.2d at 349-50 (stating that “reasonable necessity” at the time of severance is one element of an easement by necessity); Herrera, 112 N.M. at 720, 819 P.2d at 267 (<HOLDING>); see also, e.g., Thompson v. Whinnery, 895

A: holding the connection is an element
B: recognizing prejudice as an element for an iac claim
C: recognizing reasonable necessity as an element of an easement by necessity
D: holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense
C.