Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the court. Mussivand, 544 N.E.2d at 270. The existence of a duty “depends upon the foreseeability of harm: if a reasonably prudent person would have on take an affirmative action to aid or protect another, unless there is a “special and definite” relationship between the parties. Id. (citing Estates of Morgan v. Fairfield Family Counseling Ctr., 77 Ohio St.3d 284, 673 N.E.2d 1311, 1319 (1997)). However, the government must exercise reasonable care in performing responsibilities it has assumed and “conform to the standards which it sets for itself.” Dreyer v. United States, 349 F.Supp. 296, 305 (N.D.Ohio 1972), aff'd sub nom. Freeman v. United States, 509 F.2d 626 (6th Cir.1975); see also Ingham v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. 373 F.2d 227, 236 (2d Cir.1967) (“It is now well es Cir.1969) . In Freeman, the Sixth Circuit held that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims
B. holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person
C. holding that a cause of action accrues when the claimant knew or reasonably should have known of the wrong
D. holding that the faa controllers fully performed their duty to the plaintiffs based on what they knew and should have known about a planes lack of deicing equipment
E. holding that the hospital knew or should have known of the necessity to control based on a similar prior instance of inappropriate sexual conduct with a minor
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.