With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a surgeon who closed an incision after an inaccurate sponge count had failed to show that a sponge was missing was negligent as a matter of law. Laws v. Harter, 534 S.W.2d 449 (1975). However, we decline to extend the rationale of Laws to the present case. In Laws, there was no legitimate explanation for the sponge being left in the patient’s abdomen other than an act or omission by the physician. In this matter, however, we do not know who or what caused the slippery condition on the operating room floor. Moreover, we do not know whether the accidental slip caused the hip dislocation because, as pointed out by Appellants, dislocation is a risk of hip replacement surgery. We therefore hold that the question of whether or not Dr. Witten was negligent was appropriately submitted to th (<HOLDING>); Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Monroe, 237

A: holding that a mothers method of disciplining her sevenyearold child by driving away and leaving him in a kmart parking lot for fifteen minutes did not as a matter of law create a substantial risk to the childs health or safety
B: holding that injury in a parking lot did not occur on a covered situs
C: holding that a patron was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law for slipping while leaving a parking lot via the wrong aisle
D: holding that a customer was not guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law even though she knew the oil was on the floor before her slip and fall
C.