With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and digging, which occurred in the normal course of construction, caused conduits to be crushed, wires cut, and fiber optics destroyed along the entire project. In addition, the widening of the highway sometimes required the intentional deactivation of lights, as occurred with the high mast at issue. Gerelco was managing a situation in which lights were being continually deactivated either by accident or design. Apparently for this very reason, the underlying contracts recognized that ten percent of the lights on the seventeen mile stretch of highway being widened might be out at any one time. This is not a case in which the condition at issue itself created an obvious clear and present danger of serious harm. Villalta v. Cornn Int'l, Inc., 109 So.3d 278, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the light at issue had been

A: holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action
B: holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards
C: holding the issue of gross negligence was a jury question where a subcontractor failed to obey safety standards and cover holes it cut in concrete floors of a building under construction where many tradespeople were working
D: holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
C.