With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that it was undisputed that Lloyd would have ignored Henry and Pauline had they instructed him not to allow children to drive the ATV. 3. Duty of Possessor of Land to Protect Child Lawfully on Premises From Parent’s Negligent Parenting Decision There is one issue that neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals considered. As we discussed earlier, the appellants claim that Meeske Land & Cattle had a duty to protect Ashley from Lloyd’s negligent parenting decision. It is true that a possessor of land has a duty to protect those lawfully on the land from the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons if those acts are foreseeable. See Knoll v. Board of Regents, 258 Neb. 1, 601 N.W.2d 757 (1999) (<HOLDING>). But we have never decided whether this duty

A: holding that a school had no duty to protect pedestrian from student
B: holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
C: holding that university had duty to protect student from reasonably foreseeable fraternity hazing
D: holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons
C.