With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". protect electrician-contractor by de-energizing electrical system while under repair); Corpus v. K-J Oil Co., 720 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (concluding that premises occupier was not liable for crew-member’s injury when rig boom made contact with overhead electric power line; power line was reasonably apparent condition and did not give rise to duty to warn); Allen v. Tex. Elec. Serv. Co., 350 S.W.2d 866, 868-69 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort Worth 1961, writ ref'd n.r.e) (affirming take-nothing judgment on grounds that electric service company had no right of control and owed no duty to warn electrical worker hired to repair power lines injured when he came into contact with energized line); see also Le Vonas v. Acme Paper Bd. Co., 184 Md. 16, 40 A.2d 43, 47 (1944) (<HOLDING>), cited with approval in Allen, 350 S.W.2d at

A: holding that an employer through its employees did not breach an independent duty to power company not to come in contact with power companys transmission lines because such a duty is a general duty not an independent one
B: holding that company that retained independent contractor to hoist steel beams to roof had no duty to warn contractors employees who sustained injuries when beam made contact with live wires hanging near cable used to hoist beams
C: holding that the independent contractor exception in the ftca would not insulate the government from the contractors negligence if the duty was nondelegable under florida law
D: holding that a cardinal change provides the contractor with a legal right to avoid the contract discharges the contractors duty to perform and relieves the contractor of the default termination and its consequences
B.