With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". allege direct-not vicarious-liability. They contend that the open manhole posed a temporary hazard, that Albertsons had notice of the hazard, and that Albertsons therefore had a duty to act reasonably to mitigate the harm to Irene Berrett as a business invitee. In general, "property owners are not insurers of the safety of those who come upon their property, even though they are business invitees." Martin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 565 P.2d 1139, 1140 (Utah 1977). But a business owner has "'a nondelegable duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for business invitees" Price v. Smith's Food & Drug Cntrs., Inc., 2011 UT App 66, ¶ 26, 252 P.3d 365 (quoting Sullivan v. Utah Gas Serv. Co., 10 Utah 2d 359, 353 P.2d 465, 466 (1960); see also Jex v. JRA, Inc., 2008 UT 67, ¶ 25, 196 P.3d 576 (<HOLDING>). 117 "Premises liability cases generally fall

A: holding that property owner has duty to keep real property in reasonably safe condition for invitees or to warn of any hazard
B: holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons
C: holding that premises owner had duty to use degree of care in performing activities that owner of ordinary prudence would use under same or similar circumstances
D: holding that a premises owner can discharge its duty by making the property safe or by warning
B.