Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
also, e.g., Thoma v. Kettler, 632 A.2d 725, 728-29 n. 8 (D.C.1993) (noting that the generality of the regulation providing that “[d]ebris and other loose materials, shall not be allowed on or under stairways” and “[s]lippery conditions on stairways shall be eliminated as soon as possible” did not differ significantly in particulars from the common law standard of reasonable care in the circumstances); District of Columbia v. Mitchell, 533 A.2d 629, 639 (D.C.1987) (violation of statute requiring Department of Corrections to be “responsible for the safekeeping, care, protection, instruction, and discipline” of inmates implicitly recognized the common law duty of reasonable care and contained no specifics that could give rise to claim of negligence per se); Lewis, supra, 463 A.2d at 674 . McNeil argues that the trial court erred in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding hearing in chambers was not per se a violation of due process
B. holding that violation of city ordinance does not constitute negligence per se
C. holding negligence per se not applicable to violation of railroad commission regulation
D. holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation
E. holding that negligence per se instruction was not warranted where plaintiffs alleged violation in building code provision requiring neighboring property and structures be sufficiently supported
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.