With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “reason ably infer” with respect to justifiable reliance, such an argument “cannot substitute for evidence of ‘justifiable reliance.’ ” Taylor, supra, 776 A.2d at 1220 (emphasis added). Here, appellants have not shown justifiable reliance in order to establish a special relationship. Despite their conclu-sory allegations to the contrary, appellants have failed to show that Allen acted or failed to act in any way, because of the presence of EMTs, PAT monitors, or any other safety personnel at the test. Indeed, a conclusion that there was a special relationship between Allen and the District, relying overwhelmingly on the fact that EMTs were present at the PAT, would be the impetus toward perverse incentives such as the avoidance of safety precautions. Cf. Varner, supra, 891 A.2d at 272 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Allen’s decision to sign the

A: holding that operational manuals do not establish standard of care because to hold otherwise would create the perverse incentive  to write manuals in such a manner as to impose minimal duties  in order to limit civil liability internal quotation marks omitted
B: recognizing that the declaratory judgment act is only procedural and does not create substantive rights internal quotation marks and citations omitted
C: holding that the petitioner may not turn a clerical error into a windfall of rights it would not otherwise enjoy internal quotation marks omitted
D: holding that trial court retains wide latitude and considerable discretion to limit crossexamination internal quotation marks omitted
A.