Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
same was expected for the swim on the day of the incident. This testimony raises the question whether the Scouts were in fact like any business invitee (user) to whom the school district owed a duty of reasonable care to avoid a risk of harm. See SCRA 1986, 13-1309 (Repl.Pamp.1991) (owner of a building owes business visitor the duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises safe); Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., 113 N.M. 153, 157, 824 P.2d 293, 297 (1992) (“in a place of public accommodation, an occupier of the premises owes a duty to safeguard each business visitor whom the occupier reasonably may foresee could be injured by a danger avoidable through reasonable precautions available to the occupier of the premises”); Castillo v. County of Santa Fe, 107 N.M. 204, 205, 755 P.2d 48, 49 (1988) . The duty of the owner or occupier includes
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing tort of negligence by words
B. holding that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action
C. holding that tort claims act contemplates waiver of immunity when negligence of public employees causes unsafe dangerous or defective condition on property owned and operated by the government
D. holding that a public entitys property refers to the public entity that owns the property where a dangerous condition exists
E. holding that if property is not property1 of the public entity then the public entity cannot be subject to suit under the dangerous condition waiver
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.