With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". array of evidence may be relevant to establishing the scope of a duty owed. In Miller, we allowed “[e]vidence of conduct of patrons on prior occasions ... to show similar conduct could reasonably have been anticipated.” 58 Wn.2d at 884-85. In Niece, we explained the question of foreseeability 10, 914 (2011) (rejecting prior criminal incidents as the sine qua non of determining foreseeability). Moreover, it would suggest, absurdly, that a business owner who relocates after an incident occurs no longer owes a duty to use reasonable care, insofar as he has no past experience of prior acts on the new premises. Even states that embrace a modified similar acts test have not gone so far. See Ann M. v. Pac. Plaza Shopping Ctr., 6 Cal. 4th 666, 679 n.7, 863 P.2d 207, 25 Cal. Rptr. 2d 137 (1993) (<HOLDING>), disapproved on another point in Reid v.

A: recognizing that of course in a given situation offenses may be of the same or similar character and at the same time constitute a series of connected acts or parts of a single scheme
B: holding that sexual assault was not foreseeable because plaintiff produced no evidence of similar criminal acts on or near defendants premises
C: holding foreseeability is based on the totality of the circumstances not on a mechanical prior similar incidents rule
D: recognizing that while a duty to supply security guards may require evidence of prior similar acts under californias sliding scale foreseeability inquiry such act need not be on the same premises
D.