Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: Baseball & Athletic Ass'n, 185 Minn. 507, 240 N.W. 903 (1932)); Missouri (Anderson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, 231 S.W.2d 170 (Mo.1950)); New York (Akins v. Glens Falls City Sch. Dist., 53 N.Y.2d 325, 441 N.Y.S.2d 644, 424 NE.2d 531 (1981)); North Carolina (Cates v. Cincinnati Exhibition Co., 215 N.C. 64, 1 S.E.2d 131 (1939)); Ohio (Cincinnati Baseball Club Co. v. Eno, 112 Ohio St. 175, 147 N.E. 86 (1925)); Texas (Friedman v. Houston Sports Ass'n, 731 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.App.1987)); Utah (Lawson v. Salt Lake Trappers, Inc., 901 P.2d 1013 (Utah 1995)). 3 See Colorado Baseball Spectator Safety Act of 1993, Colo.Rev.Stat. 13-21-120 (1993); Baseball Facility Liability Act, III. Comp. Stat. 38/1-49 (1992). 4 See, e.g., City of Milton v. Broxson, 514 So.2d 1116, 1118 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>); Bellezzo v. Arizona, 174 Ariz. 548, 851 P.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts (B) holding a business owner must protect invitees against injury caused by third persons (C) holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action (D) holding that liability must be determined by the common law standards governing the duty of landowners to invitees (E) holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court
Output:
holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts