Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to distribute electric power). Second, the Siewerts’ claims are based on “maintenance, operation or inspection.” Minn.Stat. § 541.051, subd. 1(d). The first negligence claim’s reference to “handling, supplying, distributing, selling and placing in the stream of commerce” can reasonably be construed as implicating the “operation” of the electrical system and its components. It falls under the excepti s sufficient to raise a triable issue. Minnesota courts have long rejected the argument that a plaintiff must establish a regulatory or statutory violation to establish a duty element. See Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke, 277 N.W.2d 11, 18 (Minn.1979) (explaining that industry cannot be permitted to set its own standard of care); Muehlhauser v. Erickson, 621 N.W.2d 24, 28 (Minn.App.2000) . Minnesota courts have also held that under
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the jury need not be specifically instructed to find whether there is a connection between the defendant the weapon and the crime
B. holding that only one statutory basis is required to find a child in need of aid
C. holding in a securities fraud action that a court may only find the lack of materiality where a jury could not reasonably find materiality
D. holding that to find negligence jury need not find violation of federal motorcarrier regulation
E. holding that the grand jury need not find nonstatutory aggravating factors
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.