Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the scope of the duty to avoid causing emotional distress that results from negligence. A. Duty and Foreseeability In general, courts rely on the concept of “foreseeability” to determine whether the defendant owed a duty to the claimant in a negligence action and examine whether the risk to the claimant was “reasonably foreseeable” to the defendant. See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Shannon, 696 A.2d 1359, 1366 (D.C.1997); Haynesw orth, v. D.H. Stevens Co., 645 A.2d 1095, 1098 (D.C.1994). If the injury that befell the plaintiff was “reasonably foreseeable” to the defendant, then courts will usually conclude that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to avoid causing that injury; if the injury was not “reasonably foreseeable,” then there was no duty. Compare Shannon, 696 A.2d at 1366 , with Galloway v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 632
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendants motion for discharge was premature and thus properly denied by the trial court
B. holding that defendants failure to renew their motion for judgment as a matter of law which was denied by the district court when they made it at the close of the evidence limited the relief the appellate court could grant to a new trial
C. holding that a successive 3850 motion can be denied on the ground that it is an abuse of process if there is no reason why the issue could not have been raised in a previous motion
D. holding that the trial court may not grant summary judgment on a ground not raised in the motion
E. holding that because playground accident due to poor maintenance could have been reasonably foreseeable to the district trial court properly denied districts motion for judgment on the ground it owed no duty to child using playground
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.