With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to all future proceedings in this matter. The judgment of the Appellate Division is affirmed as modified. 1 See generally James L. Rigelhaupt, Jr., Annotation, Liability to Spectator at Baseball Game Who Is Hit by or Injured as Result of Other Hazards of Game, 91 A.L.R.3d 24 (1979) (electronically updated as of 2005). 2 The following jurisdictions have explicitly adopted the limited duty rule: California (Rudnick v. Golden W. Broadcasters, 156 Cal.App.3d 793, 202 Cal.Rptr. 900 (1984)); Iowa (Arnold v. City of Cedar Rapids, 443 N.W.2d 332 (Iowa 1989)); Louisiana (Lorino v. New Orleans Baseball & Amusement Co., 16 La.App. 95, 133 So. 408 (1931)); Michigan (Benejam v. Detroit Tigers, Inc., 246 Mich.App. 645, 635 N.W.2d 219 (2001)); Minnesota (Brisson v. Minneapo 7, 850 (Ct.App.1993) (<HOLDING>); Jones v. Three Rivers Mgmt. Corp., 483 Pa.

A: holding that the innkeeperguest special relationship simply is not applicable to the potential duty of care owed to a business invitee
B: holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm
C: holding that bjecause plaintiff was an invitee the applicable standard of care obligated appellees to discover and warn or protect  against unreasonable risk of harm
D: holding that ship owners have a duty of exercising reasonable care to protect passengers regardless of status as invitee or licensee
C.