With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". arising from his relationship with the plaintiff; (2) a failure of the defendant to conform his conduct to the requisite standard of care required by the relationship; and (8) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach. Id. at 632 (citing Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind.1991)). We then noted that imposition of a duty is limited to those instances where a reasonably foreseeable victim is injured by a reasonably foreseeable harm. Id. We further noted that absent a duty, there can be no breach and no recovery under a negligence theory. Id. Whether a defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff is a question of law for a court to decide. Id. We discussed Lather v. Berg, 519 N.E.2d 755 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) and Sports, Inc. v. Gilbert, 431 N.E.2d 534 (Ind.Ct. (1957) (<HOLDING>). Jerry's allegations and asserted facts show

A: holding that the decision regarding the amount of dynamite that would be safe under the circumstances was governed by objective standards which the government must use due care in following and is not susceptible to policy analysis
B: holding that a business owner has a duty to use reasonable care to maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition for patrons
C: holding that a landlord may have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its tenants in common areas
D: holding that a driver who though under no legal duty to do so voluntarily undertakes to signal a following driver that it is safe to pass is liable in damages for all reasonably foreseeable consequences if in giving the signal he does not exercise reasonable care for the safety of others
D.