Ten years ago Gasmask Chemicals, a leading chemical manufacturer, decided that it needed a safe place to store byproduct waste from its manufacturing processes. Many of these byproducts were highly toxic; thus, Gasmask took great care in selecting a dump site. A highly reputable engineering company was hired and an exhaustive survey was performed. Finally the Temblor Canyon site was selected and the chemicals were stored there underground, using state-of-the-art techniques. Although the survey and attendant geological soundings were performed with consummate skill, the surveyors failed to discover a crack in the rock of the storage area that was too small for their instruments to detect. Over a period of years the chemicals began to seep through the crack and into the water table below the surface. Scientists in nearby Canyon City discovered that the city's water supply, all of which came from local wells that tapped into the water table, contained unacceptably high levels of chemical contaminants. Canyon City was required to spend $ 5$ million on a complex filtration system to remove the dangerous chemicals from its water. Canyon City brought an action against Gasmask to recover the cost of building the filtration system. At the end of plaintiff's case establishing the above facts, Gasmask moved for a directed verdict. Should the court grant Gasmask's motion?
A. Yes, because Canyon City has not presented any evidence that Gasmask breached a duty owed to the city.
B. Yes, if the evidence also established that Canyon City's water wells were drilled after Gasmask stored the chemicals.
C. No, if the court determines as a matter of law that the chemicals could not be stored without risk of serious harm no matter how much care Gasmask took.
D. No, because the trier of fact could determine that the chemicals could not be stored without risk of serious harm no matter how much care Gasmask took. 
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
C