Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
S.W.2d 426, 431-2 (Mo. banc 1985). “A duty may .... be imposed by the legislature or the common law based upon a relationship between the parties,” or “imposed by a court under the circumstances of a given case based upon what the tort-feasor knew or should have known.” Strickland, 849 S.W.2d at 132; See also, Hoover’s Dairy, Inc., 700 S.W.2d at 431. However, no duty is owed to persons outside “the orbit of the danger as disclosed to the eye of reasonable vigilance.” Krause, 787 S.W.2d at 710, quoting Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad fireworks company personally hable for employee’s injuries where president personally held a board directly against spinning spool of fuse to prop it up, with the fuse catching fire and burning employee operating the machine); Tauchert, 849 S.W.2d at 574; Biller, 795 S.W.2d at 634(finding corporate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that district court should not have granted summary judgment solely on basis that motion for summary judgment was not opposed
B. holding summary judgment improper against employee where supervisor had personally arranged the faulty elevator hoist system
C. holding that a county was entitled to summary judgment where the claims against the individual defendants had failed
D. holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them
E. holding that where there was no evidence that program director was personally or directly involved in alleged violation of constitutional rights or that as supervisor she knew about allegedly unlawful conduct and facilitated approved or deliberately ignored it summary judgment was properly granted in her favor in  1983 action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.