With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiffs witnesses to render expert testimony as to the plaintiffs economic loss, (6) awarded the plaintiff costs for the testimony of one of its witnesses. We reverse the judgment only as to the bill of costs awarded for the testimony of a real estate appraiser. The jury could have reasonably found the following facts. On March 13, 1989, the plaintiff Arline Tuite tripped and fell on property owned by Sally Sega and Arthur Sega. The plaintiff commenced an action against the Segas seeking damages for the injuries she sustained, including injuries to her right shoulder. The plaintiff made discovery requests upon the Segas, and also disclosed Steven Schutzer and Bruce Cagenello as her expert witnesses. The plaintiffs action against the Segas was settled p 603, 605, 419 A.2d 339 (1979) (<HOLDING>). In these types of cases, the defendant is

A: holding construction company had actual notice of dangerous condition that its employees created
B: holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road
C: holding that actual notice fulfills a notice requirement that an applicable federal regulation be conspicuously posted because actual notice is the best notice
D: holding that condition included an intended if dangerous cycling of a traffic light
A.