With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the premises to serve the common interests of the hotel and defendant. The results of tracking in enough snow and water to create a five-foot puddle were obvious and easily foreseeable; the severity of the harm created by this condition readily apparent; the opportunity to notify of the condition and insure prevention of the obvious danger readily available and the fairness of imposing such duty indisputable. Defendant claims that the custom in the industry precludes the imposition of a duty to notify. Even if it is the custom of a delivery person- not to alert the premises owner of a hazard that he has created, the custom is wrong. See United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 173, reh’g denied, 160 F.2d 482 (2d Cir.1947); see also The T.J. Hooper, 60 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 287 U.S. 662, 53 S.Ct. 220, 77

A: holding that tugs not equipped with radios were unseaworthy despite the custom among carriers to rely upon their crews to supply their own radios noting courts must in the end say what is required there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission
B: holding that it was proper for court to rely on affidavits of defendants representatives in negotiations because their personal knowledge and competence to testify are reasonably inferred from their positions and the nature of their participation in the matters to which they swore
C: recognizing drug traffickers will commonly possess firearms to protect their product to protect their drugs to protect their cash to protect their life and even to protect their turf alteration in original internal quotation marks omit ted
D: holding that while trial courts are encouraged to state all findings in their written orders they are not required to do so as long as the basis for their decisions is clear from the record and thus susceptible to review
A.