Acompany operated a small amusement park on property it owned near a residential neighborhood. on a day when the park was closed, a 10-year-old girl snuck into the park with some friends by climbing over a chain link fence. while climbing on one of the carnival rides, the girl slipped and cut her leg on an exposed gear assembly, sustaining serious injuries. through her guardian ad litem, the girl brought suit against the company to recover damages for her injuries. at trial, she presented evidence of the accident and her injuries. in defense, the company established that the girl read and understood the "no trespassing" signs that were attached to the fence. the company also established that it had not had any previous reports of children sneaking into the park when it was closed. before submission of the case to the jury, the company moved for summary judgment. is the court likely to grant the company's motion? a yes, because the girl was a trespasser who the company had no reason to anticipate would be on the property. b yes, because the girl knew she was trespassing and was old enough to recognize the danger. c no, because the jury could find that the company should have foreseen that children would sneak into the park. d no, because the appeal of the carnival rides attracted the girl into the park.