Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and exit. The employee’s actual knowledge of the dangerous condition is imputable to Hardee’s. Hardee’s also had constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition because it knew that the par 14, 165 S.W.2d 390, 393-94 (1942) (whether condition was so obvious that plaintiff was bound to see it and whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent in not observing it were both questions of fact for the jury’s consideration); Turcol v. Shoney’s Enterprises, Inc., 640 S.W.2d at 507-08. However, the facts and circumstances in a particular case may be so one-sided that the trial court can say, as a matter of law, that a dangerous condition was so open and obvious that the plaintiff knew or should have known of the danger and assumed the risk. See, e.g., Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d at 226-27 ; Hokanson v. Joplin Rendering Co., 509 S.W.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an obvious joke told during an obvious comedy performance was not defamatory as a matter of law
B. holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger
C. holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law
D. holding that it may be decided as a matter of law
E. holding as a matter of law that natural condition present was open and obvious to all who would encounter it
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.