Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
does impose various duties upon those operating motor vehicles in this state, not every violation of article 6701d constitutes negligence as a matter of law. Caughman v. Glaze, 412 S.W.2d 357, 362 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1967, writ refd n.r.e.). On a number of occasions, Texas courts have held that violations of particular sections found in article 6701d did not constitute negligence per se. These courts have held that, because a breach of these particular sections was conditioned upon proof that the defendant failed to act “safely,” “with safety,” or “prudently,” these sections imposed upon the complainant the burden of proving that his opponent acted reasonably. See Cudworth v. South Texas Paisano Constr. Co., 705 S.W.2d 315, 317 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1986, writ refd n.r.e.) ; Renfroe v. Ramsey, 477 S.W.2d 648, 650
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the issue is not whether officer subjectively feared suspect but whether a reasonably prudent person would justifiably believe that his safety or that of others was in danger
B. holding that whether a driver operated his vehicle on an improved shoulder in safety as per section 54a depends upon whether he acted reasonably under the common law
C. holding that the inquiry into whether an employee was acting within the scope of his employment depends on the respondeat superior law of the state in which the tort occurred
D. holding that whether a driver safely entered an intersection as per section 71c depends upon whether he acted prudently
E. holding that whether a driver yielded the right of way as per section 74 depends upon whether he acted negligently or unreasonably
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.