With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". between a premises owner or operator and those present on the premises; within this context, the law imposes a duty on the premises owner or operator to take action to make the premises reasonably safe or to warn invitees and licensees of an unreasonable danger. See State v. Williams, 940 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex.1996) (per curiam). The law imposes this same duty on a general contractor in control of the premises. Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivo, 952 S.W.2d 523, 527 (Tex.1997); Redinger v. Living, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex.1985). But the Texas Supreme Court has never extended the duty to warn or make safe to defendants who did not own, occupy, or control the premises at the time of the plaintiffs injury. See Allen Keller Co. v. Foreman, 343 S.W.3d 420, 426 (Tex.2011) (<HOLDING>); Mathis, 189 S.W.3d at 845 (holding that

A: holding that engineering firm whose work was dictated by and complied with contractual specifications had no duty to warn of dangerous condition on premises
B: holding that premises owner had no duty to warn electrical subcontractor of potential for electric shock from condition which subcontractor was hired to repair
C: holding that defendant properly established that it did not owe premises liability duty because it did not own occupy or control premises where injury occurred but that defendant was not entitled to traditional summary judgment because it failed to address duty arising out of alleged creation of dangerous condition
D: recognizing that duty to warn of dangerous conditions could be based on constructive knowledge of that condition as well as actual knowledge
A.