With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Claim Plaintiff Ramage contends that defendant GET negligently contracted with GEI and Stainton’s Coaches to provide transportation for GET’s tour clients. GET argues that GEI and Stainton’s Coaches were independent contractors, and that GET is not liable for their actions per the “Responsibility” disclaimer. There is little dispute whether or not GEI and Stainton’s Coaches were independent contractors. Thus, the issue is whether GET owed a duty to Ramage to provide safe transportation. The California Court of Appeal has explained that under California law, “[f]or a negligence cause of action, the plaintiff must allege a duty, a breach of that duty, an injury to the plaintiff as a proximate result of that breach.” Krawitz v. Rusch, 209 Cal.App.3d 957, 963, 257 Cal.Rptr. 610 (1989) (<HOLDING>). “A duty may be contractual, statutory or

A: holding that a nondealer seller of a car had no duty either to install seatbelts or to warn of them absence to purchaser
B: holding that appellants had no standing to challenge search of car because they had no ownership or possessory rights of any kind in the car
C: holding that purchaser could rescind contract where seller failed to disclose a fact  the flooding of the subject real estate  that seller knew purchaser would regard as material
D: recognizing that most other jurisdictions have held that to qualify as a lost volume seller under section 27082 the seller needs to show only that it could have supplied both the breaching purchaser and the resale purchaser
A.