Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
as a subjective standard for evaluating a claim of duress. Eymard v. Terrebonne, 560 So.2d 887, 890 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 567 So.2d 614 (La.1990). The fear must be “reasonable” and of “unjust and considerable injury" to one’s person, property or reputation. Id. 560 So.2d at 890. Even if Witter could prove that his creditors “pressured” him into entering the agreement with Dornier in order to obtain favorable financial treatment, these actions would not, as a matter of law, constitute legal duress. There is no allegation by Witter that his creditors’ actions were unjust or unfounded in any way. Further, the emotional strain Witter may have experienced from his divorce is also insufficient to establish legal duress. See Adams v. Adams, 503 So.2d 1052, 1057 (La.App.2d Cir.1987) . Therefore, there is no material issue of fact
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an owner or occupant of properly is not liable to pedestrians for injuries resulting from a fall caused by the natural accumulation of snow and ice on a sidewalk in front of the property 
B. holding that critical factor is whether the declarant was still dominated by the emotions excitement fear or pain of the event
C. holding that the conflicting emotions caused by the strain of going through a critical period in ones life such as a separation from a spouse and the resulting division of property is not the type of strain constituting legal duress
D. holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction
E. holding sentence of life imprisonment resulting from a wrongful killing caused by the use of an automobile is not cruel and unusual punishment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.