With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". So.2d 525 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1979), concluded that Mrs. Godwin’s negligence would not bar her recovery. We disagree. In Rue, supra, the plaintiff inadvertently ran onto the shoulder of the highway and struck a dangerous rut which caused plaintiff to immediately lose control of her vehicle. In that case, the Supreme Court, in reversing the appellate court which denied recovery to the plaintiff on the ground of contributory negligence, held that a motorist’s duty to drive reasonably does not extend to the risk of injury from striking an unexpected and unexpectable hazard resulting from a negligently maintained highway shoulder. The <HOLDING>, supra, was clarified in the recent case of Sinitiere v. Lavergne, supra, wherein Justice Blanche, writing for the court stated: “This language (<HOLDING>) does not establish the highway shoulder as a

A: holding that the same hearing officer as in this case erred in substituting his judgment for that of the pertinent school board in that case
B: holding in an erisa case decided after greatwest that monetary relief in the form of prejudgment interest may be equitable in nature
C: holding in rue
D: holding in termination of parental rights case that trial court erred in taking judicial notice of evidence before him in guardianship hearing in same case
C.