Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
232 (2005) (recognizing Restatement [Second] of Torts § 314A[3] imposes a duty upon one in possession of land); Gragg v. Wichita State Univ., 261 Kan. 1037, 1045-46, 934 P.2d 121 (1997) (same); Gardin v. Emporia Hotels, Inc., 31 Kan. App. 2d 168, 171-72, 61 P.3d 732, rev. denied 275 Kan. 963 (2003) (same). Thus, although not in the same context, Kansas has recognized and implemented § 314A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Moreover, and in a factual scenario very similar to the one presented here, two cases from the United States District Court for the District of Kansas have specifically applied Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314A(4) to hold that prison officials owed inmates the duty to prevent self-harm. Estate of Sisk v. Manzanares, 262 F. Supp. 2d 1162, 1185-87 (D. Kan. 2002) ; Griffin v. United States, 2000 WL 33200259
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that city policymakers who owed an independent duty to pretrial detainees were individually liable under  1983 for prisoner suicide even though factfinder determined that the turnkey had not violated prisoners constitutional rights
B. holding doc and its personnel had independent legal duty to prevent prisoner from committing suicide
C. holding no legal duty exists to prevent unforeseeable criminal acts
D. holding united states marshal service had legal duty of care with respect to suicidal prisoner who escaped from custody and then committed suicide by jumping from the fourth floor atrium of united states courthouse
E. holding that instructing the jury on a legal duty theory when appellant had no legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense was error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.