Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
¶47 The principles set forth in section 344 of the Restatement are consistent with Washington precedent. Washington courts have long recognized that the special relationship between a business owner and its invitees triggers a duty on the part of the owner to protect invitees from harm arising from the foreseeable conduct of third parties. See Niece, 131 Wn.2d at 44 (quoting Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Ave. Assocs., 116 Wn.2d 217, 228, 802 P.2d 1360 (1991) (citing Prosser and Keeton on The Law of Torts 383 (W. Page Keeton ed., 5th ed. 1984))); Hutchins, 116 Wn.2d at 223-24 (noting that “the usual case where a duty may be found to protect others from third party criminal assault involves a business and its invitee”); Passovoy v. Nordstrom, Inc., 52 Wn. App. 166, 172-73, 758 P.2d 524 (1988) ; Miller v. Staton, 58 Wn.2d 879, 883, 365 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a store owner has a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
B. holding that duty to protect from criminal acts does not arise in the absence of a foreseeable risk of harm
C. holding a business owner must protect invitees against injury caused by third persons
D. holding a business owes a duty to protect invitees from reasonably foreseeable harm by third persons
E. holding that a residential landlord has no duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.