With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". §§ 422-424 (1990). Based on the record before me, I find it unnecessary to classify Finley as either a licensee or an invitee. Finley's action is based on allegations that Ms. Patterson was under a duty to warn him that a criminal act was about to be committed by a third party. The duty discussed in Saccuzzo, supra, and in a well-established line of Alabama cases dealing with a premises owner’s liability for the criminal acts of a third party, is applicable in this case regardless of whether Finley is classified as an invitee or as a licensee. See, e.g., Moye v. A.G. Gaston Motels, Inc., 499 So.2d 1368 (Ala.1986) (involving the more typical situation where the injured person is an invitee on the premises); and Prentiss v. Evergreen Presbyterian Church, 644 So.2d 475 (Ala.1994) (<HOLDING>). At this point I note that I also find

A: holding a premises owner is a general contractor for purposes of the statutory employer provision
B: holding that a premises owner can discharge its duty by making the property safe or by warning
C: holding that premises owner owed higher duty of reasonable care to visitor instead of lower duty to licensee where owners affirmative conduct of running with a pan of hot grease created a risk to a visiting child
D: recognizing the general rule that a premises owner owes a licensee not only a duty to abstain from willfully or wantonly injuring the licensee but also a duty to avoid negligently injuring the licensee after the premises owner discovers that the licensee is in danger
D.