With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". status as private homeowners rather than professional engineers or contractors, and the Preston court expressly limited its holding to that scenario. See id. at 487 n. 10 (“Our holding here relates only to the liability of ‘do-it-yourself home imp No. 2-04-24, 2005 WL 405719, at W.2d 415, 422 (Tex.App.-Austin 1995, no writ) (reversing summary judgment on negligence claim against engineering firm for design work except as barred by economic loss rule); McKinney v. Meador, 695 S.W.2d 812, 814-15 (TexApp.-Tyler 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (affirming judgment against engineers and contractors based on negligent design and construction of airport runway); Hyatt Cheek Builders-Eng’rs Co. v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Tex. Sys., 607 S.W.2d 258, 264 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1980, writ dism’d) (<HOLDING>). 1. Wyckoff v. George C. Fuller Contracting

A: holding that general negligence question properly submitted issue of contractors negligent installation of water pipe
B: holding the issue of negligence was properly submitted to the jury and its finding of negligence was a reasonable inference because decedent had known suicidal tendencies and committed suicide while a patient at a psychiatric hospital
C: holding that the disputed issue with respect to the state law bar was properly submitted to the jury
D: recognizing negligent procurement to be a negligence cause of action
A.