With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". doctrine is extended to instances in which “the possessor knows that children too young to appreciate such dangers are likely to trespass on his land.” The dissent cites a number of cases from foreign jurisdictions to the effect that water is an obvious danger to all children. These cases are not consistent with our own precedent, which has rejected blanket rules. Further, other courts across the country have reached the opposite conclusion. See, e.g., King v. Lennen, 53 Cal.2d 340, 1 Cal.Rptr. 665, 348 P.2d 98, 99-100 (1959) (emphasizing that “the circumstance that a condition giving rise to injury is common in character does not necessarily exclude liability, that the ability to appreciate danger varies with the age and mental capacity of the c 2d 43, 914 P.2d 728, 729 (1996) (<HOLDING>). We decline to adopt a categorical rule that

A: holding that a residential landlord has no duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
B: 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
C: holding landowner had duty to provide security in parking lot to protect its invitees from criminal acts of third parties
D: holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
B.