Martin, the owner in fee simple of Orchardacres, mortgaged Orchardacres to Marie to secure the payment of the loan she made to him. The loan was due at the end of the growing season of the year in which it was made. Martin maintained and operated an orchard on the land, which was his sole source of income. Halfway through the growing season, Martin experienced severe health and personal problems and, as a result, left the state; his whereabouts were unknown. Marie learned that no one was responsible for the cultivation and care of the orchard on Orchardacres. She undertook to provide, through employees, the care of the orchard and the harvest for the remainder of the growing season. The net profits were applied to the debt secured by the mortgage on Orchardacres. During the course of the harvest, Paul, a business invitee, was injured by reason of a fault in the equipment used. Under applicable tort case law, the owner of the premises would be liable for Paul's injuries. Paul brought an appropriate action against Marie to recover damages for the injuries suffered, relying on this aspect of tort law. In such lawsuit, judgment should be for 
Paul, if, but only if, the state is a title theory state, because in other jurisdictions a mortgagee has no title interest but only a lien.  Paul, because Marie was a mortgagee in possession.  Marie, because she acted as agent of the owner only to preserve her security interest.  Marie, if, but only if, the mortgage expressly provided for her taking possession in the event of danger to her security interest. 
Question: Martin, the owner in fee simple of Orchardacres, mortgaged Orchardacres to Marie to secure the payment of the loan she made to him. The loan was due at the end of the growing season of the year in which it was made. Martin maintained and operated an orchard on the land, which was his sole source of income. Halfway through the growing season, Martin experienced severe health and personal problems and, as a result, left the state; his whereabouts were unknown. Marie learned that no one was responsible for the cultivation and care of the orchard on Orchardacres. She undertook to provide, through employees, the care of the orchard and the harvest for the remainder of the growing season. The net profits were applied to the debt secured by the mortgage on Orchardacres. During the course of the harvest, Paul, a business invitee, was injured by reason of a fault in the equipment used. Under applicable tort case law, the owner of the premises would be liable for Paul's injuries. Paul brought an appropriate action against Marie to recover damages for the injuries suffered, relying on this aspect of tort law. In such lawsuit, judgment should be for 
A. Paul, if, but only if, the state is a title theory state, because in other jurisdictions a mortgagee has no title interest but only a lien. 
B. Paul, because Marie was a mortgagee in possession. 
C. Marie, because she acted as agent of the owner only to preserve her security interest. 
D. Marie, if, but only if, the mortgage expressly provided for her taking possession in the event of danger to her security interest. 
Answer: