With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 673, 676 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied); Abbott v. City of Kaufman, 717 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1986, writ dism’d w.o.j.); Gottlieb v. Hofheinz, 523 S.W.2d 7, 10 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1975, writ dism’d w.o.j.). In determining whether appellant raised a fact issue precluding summary judgment, we must consider whether the booking officer’s “use” of the booking room falls within the realm of “use” of personal property as contemplated in § 101.021(2) of the Act. “Use” has been defined in the context of the Act as “to put or bring into action or service; to employ for or apply to a given purpose.” Salcedo, 659 S.W.2d at 33 (interpreting “use” in the context of TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. ART. 6252-19, § 3, repealed, now § 101.021(2) of the Tex 0 (Tex.1976) (<HOLDING>) with Overton Memorial Hosp. v. McGuire, 518

A: holding that the hospitals failure to provide patient with a hospital bed with side rails brought the case under  1010212
B: holding that universitys failure to provide football player with proper protective gear to be used as part of his football uniform brought the case under  1010212
C: holding that trial courts failure to provide additional instructions as to plaintiffs burden of proof in negligence case was not reversible error there having been no proper and accurate request for such instruction
D: holding that hospitals failure to provide epileptic and mentally retarded patient with a life preserver to be used as part of his swimming attire brought the case under  1010212
B.