Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an appropriate degree of care to protect hotel guests from criminal victimization. Nor can it be said that the duty of anticipation extends only to crimes similar in nature and seriousness to those that have occurred in the past. See Orlando Executive Park, Inc. v. P.D.R., 402 So.2d 442 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981), (burglaries sufficient to alert hotel operator to possibility of attack); Mozlak v. Ettinger, 25 Ill.App.3d 706, 323 N.E.2d 796 (1975); (attempted break-ins at women’s residence indicated possibility of assault); Jenness v. Sheraton-Cadillac Properties, Inc., 48 Mich.App. 723, 211 N.W.2d 106 (1973), (in which hotel employees allowed a prostitute to loiter and she assaulted a guest who refused her solicitations); Morgan v. Bucks Associates, 428 F.Supp. 546 (E.D.Pa., 1977), . In Murphy v. Penn Fruit Co., supra, 418 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that restatement second of torts  323 and 324a correctly state pennsylvania law
B. recognizing tentative draft of restatement second of torts  652e
C. recognizing kansas courts adoption of restatement second of torts  909 1977
D. recognizing that restatement second of torts   416 to 429 are often overlapping
E. holding that auto thefts on parking lot should alert owner to danger of assaults citing restatement second of torts  281 comment j 1965
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.