Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): liability under this rule is the “superior knowledge of an unreasonable risk of harm of which the invitee, in the exercise of ordinary care, does not or should not know.” Jenkins v. Hestand’s Grocery, Inc., 320 Ark. 485, 898 S.W.2d 30, 31 (1995). An exception to this general rule of duty of care is found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A(1) (1965) which states that a “possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness.” Based on section 343A(1), a landowner has no liability to his invitees when the allegedly dangerous condition is open and obvious. See Jenkins, 898 S.W.2d at 31 (<HOLDING>). In this ease, Smith testified that she had 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing exception (B) recognizing such an exception (C) recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception (D) recognizing the restatements exception to the duty a landowner owes an invitee as articulated in section 343 (E) recognizing the public interest exception
Output (English): recognizing such an exception