Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by license plate holders such as the one on which plaintiff bruised his knee. “Reasonable care is determined in light of whether or not a particular danger was foreseeable.” Syverson v. Consol. Rail Corp., 19 F.3d 824, 826 (2d Cir.1994) (citing Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 372 U.S. 108, 117, 83 S.Ct. 659, 9 L.Ed.2d 618 (1963)). In Syverson, we allowed a negligence claim to go forward because the employer had received complaints about the alleged hazard and another employee had suffered injury in the past. 19 F.3d at 827. In this case, plaintiff adduced no evidence indicating that CSXT knew or should have known that license plate holders posed a risk to workers or even that one was affixed to the vehicle in question. See Higgins v. Metro-North R.R., 318 F.3d 422, 427 (2d Cir.2003) ; Gallose v. Long Island R.R., 878 F.2d 80, 85
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where plaintiff fails to raise issue of timeliness of departments hearing at administrative level the issue is waived on appeal
B. holding that plaintiff who fails to demonstrate employers awareness of any particular threat posed by circumstance at issue cannot prove negligence
C. recognizing the general principle that a party who fails to address an issue has conceded the issue
D. holding that employer is entitled to summary judgment where plaintiff fails to provide evidence necessary to prove at trial that there is disproportionate impact of employers policy on black employees
E. holding issue not properly before the appellate court where appellant fails to demonstrate where in the record an issue was raised in the district court
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.