With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". out of the defective and unsafe co drilled in a negligent manner, that respondents’ negligence after the gas line strike prevented those in danger from being warned, and that respondents’ negligence prevented the gas from being turned off in time to avert an explosion. At the time of the explosion, the anchor was bent out of alignment and had pierced a gas line. Jaenty appears to argue that this condition of the anchor does not qualify as a “defective and unsafe condition” because any damage to the anchor or caused by the anchor occurred because of errors during the installation process. This court has already held that negligence during the installation process can lead to a “defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property.” See Pac. Indem. Co., 260 N.W.2d at 552-55 (<HOLDING>). Because the anchor was not installed

A: holding that a previous version of section 541051 applied to damages resulting in part from installing a furnace too close to a nearby wall
B: recognizing that in 1998 the legislature repealed a previous version of the statute and enacted two statutes in replacement
C: holding in part that the 1987 version of article 28061 was unconstitutional
D: holding that the 1999 version of the sorp like the 1997 version is nonpunitive in both intent and effect
A.