Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of a train of vehicles; that is registered in Indiana and manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1956, must be equipped with at least two (2) tail lamps mounted on the rear that, when lighted, complies with this section. The trial court construed this statute as requiring “only that a motor vehicle be equipped with at least one (1) tail lamp mounted on the rear that when lighted emits a red light plainly visible from a distance of five hundred (500) feet to the rear.” App. p. 29. This construction of the statute apparently relies only upon subsection (a); however, subsection (c) applies to vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1956, such as Cunningham’s vehicle undisputedly was, and requires two operating tail lamps. See Freeman v. State, 904 N.E.2d 340, 342-43 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) . We recently re-addressed Section 9-19-6-4 in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that court did not err by refusing to charge jury with exercise of judgment instruction where issue was whether nurse had duty to constantly monitor patient because case did not involve selection between one of two courses of treatment or two schools of thought
B. holding in light of several red flags  that brokers reliance on approval of firm and its lawyers did not negate finding that he acted willfully
C. holding in light of this courts decision in harkness ii that section 774 was not an unconstitutional infringement on this courts exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law
D. holding that section 91964 requires vehicles to have two constantly illuminated tail lamps that emit red light that a rearmounted brakeonly red light does not satisfy this requirement and stop of vehicle was justified where one of vehicles tail lamps was burned out
E. holding that a false light claim requires pleading and proof of special damages
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.