With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its patrons, of any responsibility anywhere on its business premises regardless of its negligence. This we decline to do. V. To recapitulate, the limited duty rule, as set forth above and in Schneider, will apply to injuries occurring in the stands. However, traditional rules of negligence, specifically the business invitee rule, will govern owner and operator liability for injuries that occur in all other areas of the stadium. That adjustment of the ground rules is a fair and appropriate accommodation of the competing interests.- We remand this matter to the trial court for application of the standard we have set forth in this 394 A.2d 546 (1978) (discussed further in Part IV below). See also Costa v. Boston Red Sox Baseball Club, 61 Mass.App.Ct. 299, 809 N.E.2d 1090, 1092-93 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Justice WALLACE, JR., concurring. I concur

A: holding only duty is to warn of unreasonable dangers which do not include foul balls
B: holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution
C: holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community
D: recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known
A.