With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". an appropriate degree of care to protect hotel guests from criminal victimization. Nor can it be said that the duty of anticipation extends only to crimes similar in nature and seriousness to those that have occurred in the past. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. P.D.R., 402 So.2d 442 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981), (burglaries sufficient to alert hotel operator to possibility of attack); Mozlak v. Ettinger, 25 Ill.App.3d 706, 323 N.E.2d 796 (1975); (attempted break-ins at women’s residence indicated possibility of assault); Jenness v. Sheraton-Cadillac Properties, Inc., 48 Mich.App. 723, 211 N.W.2d 106 (1973), (in which hotel employees allowed a prostitute to loiter and she assaulted a guest who refused her solicitations); Morgan v. Bucks Associates, 428 F.Supp. 546 (E.D.Pa., 1977), (<HOLDING>). In Murphy v. Penn Fruit Co., supra, 418 A.2d

A: recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e
B: recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law
C: holding that auto thefts on parking lot should alert owner to danger of assaults citing restatement second of torts  281 comment j 1965
D: recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977
C.