With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a plaintiff asserting a claim of continuing trespass can elect to bring an action for all past, present, and future damages inflicted thereby. McDaniel v. City of Cherryvale, 91 Kan. 40, 40, 136 P. 899, 900-01 (Kan.1913); Wichita & W.R. Co. v. Fechheimer, 36 Kan. 45, 45, 12 P. 362, 364 (Kan.1886); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 930 (allowing single action for past and future damages by continuing trespass). Indeed, in analogous cases involving trespass claims against public utilities, the Kansas courts have held that public policy prohibits a plaintiff from sitting on his or her rights while the defendant creates large interests useful to the company and the public. See Taylor Inv. Co. v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 182 Kan. 511, 523-24, 322 P.2d 817, 827-28 (Kan.1958) (<HOLDING>); see also Buckwalter v. Atchison, T. & S.F.

A: holding that a plaintiff could recover actual damages under the tcpa for loss of credit if the plaintiff submitted sufficient proof of the amount damages requested
B: recognizing aiding and abetting trespass
C: holding that a plaintiff could not recover mentalanguish damages because he had failed to rebut the defendants prima facie showing that the alleged trespass was not attended by words or acts of insult or contumely
D: holding plaintiff could not pursue ejectment or damages for alleged continuing trespass by power company
D.