Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
injuries to children who may have fallen therein.... ” Neal v. Home Builders, 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 280, 286 (1953) (quoting 38 AmJur. § 151), reh’g denied. Thus, the risk of falling from a height to the ground or of falling into an excavation, pit, or ditch is considered obvious and, therefore, generally precludes the application of the doctrine. See 62 Am. JuR.2d § 352. However, certain exceptions have been made in cases where a dangerous condition was concealed, where the structure from which the child fell was defective, where there existed a distracting influence which made it likely that the child would not appreciate the danger, or where the child was too young to appreciate any risk. See id. at § 353; see also Greene v. Di Fazio, 148 Conn. 419, 424, 171 A.2d 411, 414 (1961) . In the present case, the parties dispute the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation
B. holding in a securities fraud action that a court may only find the lack of materiality where a jury could not reasonably find materiality
C. holding that the jury could find that a nine year old boy did not realize the risk of falling fiom a plank over an open stairwell in a house under construction
D. holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury
E. holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.