With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". this case. As discussed above, Section 710 places the duty squarely on the skier (here, the plaintiff) to avoid collisions with those on the hill below her. Here, it is undisputed that Dinan was downhill from Rich, that she saw him at the side of trail, and that she ran into him because she was not adept at making the turn necessary to avoid him. This is precisely the situation that the legislature intended to cover when it passed the Statute. A ski area operator (which necessarily includes not only Bousquet but also its employee Dinan) has no responsibility under the Statute to protect against such collisions. Without a legal duty to avoid the accident, the defendants cannot be negligent as a matter of law. Compare Tilley v. Brodie Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 412 Mass. 1009, 1010 (1992) (<HOLDING>). CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the foregoing

A: holding that the plaintiff was precluded from asserting her failure to promote claim as a continuing violation
B: holding that injury of plaintiff  who was detained in negligently parked patrol car that along with another patrol car was struck by thirdparty vehicle  did not arise out of use or operation of patrol car within meaning of ttcas motorvehicle waiver rather patrol car merely furnished condition that made injury possible
C: holding that commonlaw negligence claim may still lie where the plaintiff was struck from behind from a member of the ski patrol who was above her on the ski slope
D: holding that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that her arrest for assault under  290313 was unlawful or that her prosecution was malicious when she grabbed the officer from behind the officer pushed her away and she then grabbed the officers shirt
C.