Paula sued for injuries she sustained in a fall in a hotel hallway connecting the lobby of the hotel with a restaurant located in the hotel building. The hallway floor was covered with vinyl tile. The defendants were Horne, owner of the hotel building, and Lee, lessee of the restaurant. The evidence was that the hallway floor had been waxed approximately an hour before Paula slipped on it, and although the wax had dried, there appeared to be excessive dried wax caked on several of the tiles. Horne's defense was that the hallway was a part of the premises leased to Lee over which he retained no control, and Lee denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence."If Paula offered to prove that the day after she fell Horne had the vinyl tile taken up and replaced with a new floor covering, the trial judge should rule the evidence
admissible, because it is relevant to the issue of whether Horne retained control of the hallway.  admissible, because it is relevant to the issue of awareness of the unsafe condition of the hallway at the time of Paula's fall.  inadmissible, because there was no showing that the new floor covering would be any safer than the old.  inadmissible, because to admit such would discourage a policy of making repairs to prevent further injury, regardless of fault
Question: Paula sued for injuries she sustained in a fall in a hotel hallway connecting the lobby of the hotel with a restaurant located in the hotel building. The hallway floor was covered with vinyl tile. The defendants were Horne, owner of the hotel building, and Lee, lessee of the restaurant. The evidence was that the hallway floor had been waxed approximately an hour before Paula slipped on it, and although the wax had dried, there appeared to be excessive dried wax caked on several of the tiles. Horne's defense was that the hallway was a part of the premises leased to Lee over which he retained no control, and Lee denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence."If Paula offered to prove that the day after she fell Horne had the vinyl tile taken up and replaced with a new floor covering, the trial judge should rule the evidence
A. admissible, because it is relevant to the issue of whether Horne retained control of the hallway. 
B. admissible, because it is relevant to the issue of awareness of the unsafe condition of the hallway at the time of Paula's fall. 
C. inadmissible, because there was no showing that the new floor covering would be any safer than the old. 
D. inadmissible, because to admit such would discourage a policy of making repairs to prevent further injury, regardless of fault
Answer: