A housecleaning agency was given a key to a customer's house so that the agency could have its employees clean while the homeowner was away. After a maid sent by the agency had finished and left the homeowner's house, she went back because she had forgotten her cigarettes. She neglected to lock the door when she left the second time because she was already late for the next job. When the homeowner returned after a few days away, she discovered that her house had been ransacked and several items of jewelry stolen. The front door was open, and there were no signs of forced entry. If the homeowner brings an action against the agency that employed the maid, what is the likely result?
A. She will not prevail, because she is limited to claims for breach of contract based on her agreement with the agency.
B. She will not prevail, because the act of the burglar was an independent superseding cause of the homeowner's loss.
C. She will prevail, because the maid's failure to lock the door created the risk that someone might enter and take the homeowner's valuables.
D. She will prevail, because when the maid returned after having completed her work, she was technically a trespasser, making the agency vicariously liable for any damage she caused to the premises.