Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
result: An actor who makes a misrepresentation is subject to liability to another for physical harm which results from an act done by the other or a third person in reliance upon the truth of the representation, if the actor (a) intends his statement to induce or should realize that it is likely to induce action by the other, or a third person, which involves an unreasonable risk of physical harm to the other, and (b) knows (i) that the statement is false, or (ii) that he has not the knowledge which he professes. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 310 (1965) (emphasis supplied). Though cited to in passing by the Court of Appeals in a small number of cases, § 310 has not been expressly adopted by Maryland courts. But see Gourdine v. Crews, 405 Md. 722, at 791 n. 14, 955 A.2d 769 (2008) ; see also Virginia Dare Stores v. Schuman, 175
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position
B. holding that plaintiff had failed to state a claim for relief under section 1983
C. holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time
D. holding that a constitutional violation by the individual defendants is required in order to sustain a claim against the municipality
E. recognizing that although the plaintiff attempted to make a claim under section 310 the plaintiff failed to establish the element of duty required to sustain that claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.