With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (imputing to owner actual knowledge of owner’s employee as to dangerous condition of paving and subsurface of parking lot). The district court should not have included notice as an element of liability in instruction No. 7. Here, the evidence conclusively showed Hardee’s had actual and constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition of the surface of the parking lot. A Hardee’s employee testified about the degreaser he used the day that Mrs. Scheerer slipped and fell, that the degreaser left a residue on the surface of the parking lot because there was no drainage, and that, on the day of the accident, he had watered the plants around the restaurant and that water from the hose had run onto the sidewalk and the parking lot directly outside the restaurant entran 7, 110-14 (Mo.1974) (<HOLDING>); Adkins v. Sutherland Lumber Co., 307 S.W.2d

A: holding that cornwell was not required to sue them and her failure to do so in the original complaint in light of her obvious knowledge and the detailed nature of that pleadings exhibit must be considered a matter of choice not mistake
B: holding plaintiffs detailed and thorough knowledge of conditions and dangers put plaintiff as a matter of law in position to protect himself equal to that of defendant
C: holding that defendants position as bank vice president which allowed him knowledge of the banking system and the operations of the bank as well as the ability to oversee commercial and real estate loans and to act as a compliance officer qualified as a position of trust
D: recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge
B.