With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". P.2d 284 (1997). We conclude that the Legislature did not intend to limit the building waiver to property in which the public entity has a real property interest or a landowner’s duty. {10} Rather, it is clear from our cases that an ownership interest in a building is but one of several ways of proving that a duty to operate or maintain exists. Compare Seal v. Carlsbad Indep. Sch. Dist., 116 N.M. 101, 104-05, 860 P.2d 743, 746-47 (1993) (describing duties of an owner/occupier and citing W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Lato of Torts § 61, at 425-26 (5th ed.1984)) and Castillo, 107 N.M. at 206-07, 755 P.2d at 50-51 (discussing common law duties imposed on an owner or occupier) with Merrill v. Buck, 58 Cal.2d 552, 25 Cal.Rptr. 456, 375 P.2d 304, 309-11 (Cal.1962) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). As a question of duty, this case is in some

A: holding that where the will did not provide the life tenant with the power to sell and it was not necessary to sell the property for the payment of estate expenses the life tenant was not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the property instead the proceeds became a part of the residuary estate
B: holding that real estate salespeople not in privity with buildings owners had a duty to warn tenant of reasonably foreseeable concealed danger in the premises where salespeople were aware of the danger and had affirmatively undertaken to show the house to the tenant in the regular course of their business with the purpose of earning a commission if she decided to rent it
C: holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property
D: holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant
B.