With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". liability under this rule is the “superior knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm of which the invitee, in the exercise of ordinary care, does not or should not know.” Jenkins v. Hestand’s Grocery, Inc., 320 Ark. 485, 898 S.W.2d 30, 31 (1995). An exception to this general rule of duty of care is found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) (1965) which states that a “possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” Based on section 343A(1), a landowner has no liability to his invitees when the allegedly dangerous condition is open and obvious. See Jenkins, 898 S.W.2d at 31 (<HOLDING>). In this ease, Smith testified that she had

A: recognizing the restatements exception to the duty a landowner owes an invitee as articulated in section 343
B: recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception
C: recognizing exception
D: recognizing such an exception
A.