Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1015 (1893), where a landowner, the City of Anderson, granted contractors the right to construct a sewer along one of its streets and we held: "and if [the contractors], in the construction thereof, unlawfully entered upon appellee's property, to her injury, [the contractors] alone are answerable therefor."). The Neals rely on decisions from other jurisdictions that impose liability on landlords when the landlord acquiesced in the tenant's creation of a nuisance. See, e.g., Rudd v. Electrolux Corp., 982 F.Supp. 355, 360 (M.D.N.C.1997) (owner who knows about contamination on his land and does nothing to remedy the situation is responsible for the migration of that contamination to another's property); Reynolds v. Pardee and Curtin Lumber Co., 172 W.Va. 804, 310 S.E.2d 870, 876-77 (1983) ; Sta ples v. Hoefke, 189 Cal.App.3d 1397, 235
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding landlord jointly liable when he knew of or acquiesced in the tenants trespass
B. holding tenants leasing house by oral agreement were coinsureds both landlord and tenants had liability insurance
C. holding landlord and tenants obligations mutually dependent
D. holding the landlord did not trespass when his agent entered the premises for the purpose of showing them to a potential tenant
E. holding that a landlord may have a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its tenants in common areas
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.