With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 5 . As a part of these settlements, MG obtained releases pursuant to which customers specifically released Eastman, Cpyotech, and Mellon from liability arising out of the contaminated carbon dioxide. 6 . MG has broken down its duty argument into eight, rather than four, subtopics. For the sake of brevity and convenience, and because many of the issues of the subtopics are interrelated, we will address some of the subtopics along with their counterparts. 7 . See, e.g., Godwin Aircraft, Inc. v. Walker, C/A No. 02A01-9708-CV-00187, 1998 WL 612898, at *2 (Tenn.Ct.App.W.S., filed September 15, 1998) (stating that "clearly, appel-lee owed a duty of due care when leasing appellant the airplane in question”); Benlehr v. Shell Oil Co., 62 Ohio App.2d 1, 402 N.E.2d 1203, 1209 (Ohio Ct.App.1978) (<HOLDING>) (footnote omitted). 8 . In Nath, the issue was

A: holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger
B: holding that where a lessor seeks to lease property for a use which is inherently dangerous or has highly dangerous potentialities involving a substantial risk to the general public and such danger or risk to the public is such that it may be foreseen by the lessor the lessor owes a duty of reasonable care in selecting and entrusting such property to a lessee
C: holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists
D: holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver
B.