With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a tortfeasor compelled to discharge a liability for a tort cannot recover contribution from a joint tortfeasor whose participation therein gave the injured person no cause of action against him, since the element of common liability of both tortfeasors to the injured person, essential to the right of contribution, is lacking in such cases.” 25 A.L.R.4th 1123, Joint Tortfeasor Contribution-Family §§ 2[a] (1983); 18 Am.Jur.2d, supra § 65. “The contribution defendant must be a tortfeasor, and originally liable to the plaintiff. If there was never any such liability, as where the contribution defendant has the defense of family immunity ... then there is no liability for contribution.” W. Prosser & W. Keeton, Torts (5th Ed.1984) § 50, pp. 339-40; 18 C.J.S., Contribution § 29 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Again, it is undisputed that, in the present

A: holding child could bring action for enticement of parent
B: recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision
C: recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child
D: holding when real estate is conveyed to a child and consideration is paid by the parent the parent has the burden of proving a gift was not intended
B.