Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
In the absence of such relationships or when the circumstances of a particular case do not suggest a duty of protection or a duty to control, then “the evidentiary hurdle is higher” and the risk of the criminal act must be precisely shown. Workman, 320 F.3d at 264. The rationale for lessening the requirement of heightened foreseeability in cases involving a special relationship between the parties is that “the ability of one of the parties to provide for his own protection has been limited in some way by his submission to the control of the other,” and, therefore, “a duty should be imposed upon the one possessing control (and thus the power to act) to take reasonable precautions to protect the other one from assaults by third parties which, at least l conduct of servant); id. § 318 ; id. § 319 (recognizing duty of those in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that as one who does an act or carries on an activity upon land on behalf of the possessor refrigeration supply company could be liable for physical injury caused to others on premises as though it were a possessor of land when its employees allegedly removed plywood covering trench inside market and plaintiff tripped over exposed cables
B. recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child
C. recognizing duty of possessor of land or chattels to control conduct of licensee
D. holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land
E. holding authority to control limits duty to control
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.