With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and is not intended to affect, establish, or diminish any liability of commercial builders, contractors or renovators.”). Indeed, part of the court’s rationale was that California homeowners generally would not be insured for an injury suffered after conveyance of the property. Id. at 483. No such analysis has been offered here. Second, unlike Strakos, Preston focused on “ownership and control as a fundamental requirement for ascribing liability,” rather than the creation of a dangerous condition. Id. at 483. Strakos also rejected the accepted work doctrine, a doctrine that eliminated a defendant’s liability after work was accepted because the defendant no longer controlled the property. Strakos, 360 S.W.2d at 790 (explaining that liability should not exist day 704, 706-08 (1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Carroll v. Dairy Farmers of Am.,

A: holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner
B: holding that in the context of construction litigation regarding the alleged negligence of design professionals a tort action for negligent misrepresentation alleging damages based purely on economic loss is not available to a party in privity of contract with a design professional
C: recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor
D: holding former plant owner liable for negligent design of conveyor belt
D.