Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
5 The court, however, refused to abrogate the immunities that a landowner enjoys in relation to trespassers. Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski, 70 Wis. 2d 836, 839, 236 N.W.2d 1 (1975). 6 But see Johnson v. Blackburn, 227 Wis. 2d 249, 257-58, 595 N.W.2d 676 (1999)("As a general matter, a landlord owes a tenant, as well as guests of a tenant, the duty to exercise ordinary care. A landlord's duty to trespassers, however, is to refrain from willful and intentional injury."); Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 421, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995) ("Although individuals generally owe a duty of ordinary care to all persons, we recognize that limitations do exist with respect to the imposition of a legal duty in some cases.”). 7 Compare Shannon v. Shannon, 150 Wis. 2d 434, 445-46, 442 N.W.2d 24 (1989)  (quoting Pagelsdorf, 91 Wis. 2d at 745);
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the court in pagelsdorf v safeco ins co of am 91 wis 2d 734 745 284 nw2d 55 1979 imposed a duty upon landlords to  exercise ordinary care in the maintenance of the premises
B. holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise
C. holding that under either theory the duty is the same ordinary care
D. holding that a railroad had a duty to exercise this level of care even in the absence of statutorily imposed duties
E. recognizing a landlords duty for injuries sustained on leased premises where the landlord is aware that the premises are leased with intent to admit the public
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.