With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". So.2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Fenster v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 785 So.2d 737, 739 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). As part of the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, a property owner also has a duty to maintain the property to prevent foreseeable risks that exist on adjacent property. This is true because the “duty element of a negligence action focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a broader ‘zone of risk’ that poses a general threat of harm to others.” Almarante v. Art Inst. of Fort Lauderdale, Inc., 921 So.2d 703, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Goldberg v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 899 So.2d 1105, 1110 (Fla.2005)). Accordingly, a “landowner’s conduct can give rise to a zone of risk extending beyond t (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (<HOLDING>). In this case, it is undisputed that the Point

A: holding in a ease involving a child less than 3 years old that a landowner is not exempt from the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against potentially dangerous conditions on the land solely because the potential danger includes risks which are inherent in a natural body of water
B: holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
C: holding that a highway worker was using his employers vehicle while placing lane closure signs along the side of a highway
D: holding that a hotel built adjacent to a highway owed a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its invitees in passing over the highway to and from appellees hotel facilities
D.