With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 2006, shortly after his sentencing, Mr. Wellinger gave a sworn statement, under examination by Plaintiffs lawyer, Barry LaKritz; Mr. Wellinger was represented by his personal counsel, Steven Z. Cohen. This sworn statement was attached by Defendant's previous counsel, Herschel Fink, as an Exhibit to Siemens' Motion for Sanctions, filed be fore Judge Edmunds. (Reply Brief in Support of Motion of UGS for Rule 11 Sanctions, Dkt. No. 20, Ex. A.) References to this testimony will appear as “Wellinger Statement.” 3 . Bush, like many of the cases relied on by the parties on the issue of course and scope of employment, involves a claim for worker’s compensation benefits where the employee, as a condition of receiving benefits, must establish tha 656 N.W.2d 195 (2003) (the "Jenny Jones” case) (<HOLDING>). While these cases support the general

A: holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties
B: holding there is no duty to third parties on the part of a premises owner who could not have foreseen the criminal acts of third parties
C: holding that a defendant easement holder did not owe duty to protect an invitee from a fence which the defendant had no right to control
D: holding that a talk show host did not owe a cognizable duty to protect a guest on the show from the homicidal acts of third parties
D.