Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
citizens from harm caused by criminal conduct); Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 3 (D.C.1981) (neither District nor police officials can be held liable for failure of police properly to respond to request from victims for protection from burglars); see also District of Columbia v. Forsman, 580 A.2d 1314, 1317-18 (D.C.1990) (District owes no individualized duty, in context of issuing building permits, to ensure that person to whom permit is issued secures liability insurance adequate to compensate neighbors for damage to their property caused by collapse of permittee’s structure). 5 . My colleagues dispute this analogy upon the ground that the public duty doctrine "is applied to determine whether a duty exists.” That, however, is also the essenc 140, 142-43 (D.C.1990) . My colleagues apparently contend that Nichol
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that hospital may be held liable for negligence of emergency room physicians under apparent agency doctrine
B. holding that the govemment is not liable under the federal tort claims act for injuries to service members where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to military service
C. holding that a forest preserve will be liable for injuries only in the case of willful and wanton negligence that proximately causes such injuries
D. holding bad faith not merely negligence must be proved if insurer is to be held liable for damages over policy limits for refusing to settle
E. holding that district could be held liable if affirmative negligence of ambulance service actively worsens plaintiffs injuries
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.