Philip was a 10-year-old boy. Macco was a company that sold new and used machinery. Macco stored discarded machinery, pending sale for scrap, on a large vacant area it owned. This area was unfenced and was one-quarter mile from the housing development where Philip lived. Macco knew that children frequently played in the area and on the machinery. Philip's parents had directed him not to play on the machinery because it was dangerous. One day Philip was playing on a press in Macco's storage area. The press had several wheels, each geared to the next. Philip climbed on the largest wheel, which was about five feet in diameter. Philip's weight caused the wheel to rotate, his foot was caught between two wheels that were set in motion, and he was severely injured. A claim for relief was asserted by Philip through a duly appointed guardian. Macco denied liability and pleaded Philip's contributory fault as a defense. In determining whether Macco breached a duty to Philip, which of the following is the most significant?
Whether the press on which Philip was injured was visible from a public way. Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a private nuisance. Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a public nuisance. Whether Macco could have eliminated the risk of harm without unduly interfering with Macco's normal operations