Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Corp., 282 Minn. 400, 165 N.W.2d 259, 261 (1969) (finding woman who, while in a department store dressing room, heard a noise like an explosion and witnessed the collapse of a wall, although she herself merely got dusty, to be within a zone of danger); Quill v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 361 N.W.2d 438, 440 (Minn.Ct.App.1985) (determining that man who experienced a sudden 34,000-foot drop in elevation due to the out-of-control tailspin of the commercial aircraft in which he was a passenger was within a zone of danger). Masepohl has not alleged a single incident that could even remotely be construed as placing him in a zone of danger. The doctrine of negligent infliction of emotional distress simply does not cover the type of conduct that Masepohl asserts. Cf. K.A.C., 527 N.W.2d at 558 . As for Masepohl’s negligence claim, Masepohl
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding statement that plaintiff was antisemitic not actionable
B. holding that defendant must have placed plaintiff in a situation where it was abundantly clear that plaintiff was in grave personal peril for some specifically defined period of time for negligent infliction claim to be actionable
C. holding that the plaintiff must have more than a unilateral expectation the plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit
D. holding that for a plaintiff to recover on claim of negligent hiring the negligent hiring of the employee must have been the proximate cause of the injury at issue
E. recognizing that a plaintiff cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress unless she has either witnessed or experienced a dangerous accident or experienced some actual physical peril
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.