With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". upon which it operates its game preserve. The injury suffered by the plaintiffs occurred as an incident to state operation of state-owned land. The plaintiffs apparently recognize this distinction by arguing that the operation of the wildlife management areas amounts to a nuisance and that this nuisance is the cause of their injury. Missouri courts have recognized that damage to private property in the nature of a nuisance creates a cause of action sounding in inverse condemnation when the nuisance is operated by an entity holding the power of eminent domain. See Stewart v. City of Marshfield, 431 S.W.2d 819, 822-23 (Mo.App.1968) (plaintiffs’ property suffered damage from the city’s operation of its sewer system); Page v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, 377 S.W.2d 348 (Mo.1964) (<HOLDING>). Since the Missouri Department of Conservation

A: holding that the government is immune from liability for its choice of traffic protection devices
B: holding that the city was immune from tort liability for maintaining a nuisance but suggesting that the case should be refiled under a theory of inverse condemnation
C: recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability
D: holding city not immune from liability where claims were based on the citys failure to maintain clean and inspect an area of the street
B.