With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The majority opinion also states without explanation that it would not have been “practical or possible” for the District to establish contacts with Mr. Allen as one of the “nearly two dozen” or “over two dozen” test takers that day. But nothing about the fact that Mr. Allen was one of the select few the District screened and scheduled to take its PAT on that day made it less foreseeable that he might get hurt or fall ill during the PAT or converts the District’s duty to care for all of the test takers into a public duty. At least in earlier cases, we have recognized that a duty of care can flow to a “class” of persons. See Turner, 532 A.2d 662 (explaining that a statutorily mandated special duty is owed to every adjudicated neglected child in the District); cf. Hines, 580 A.2d at 138 (<HOLDING>). Our apparent movement away from that

A: holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school
B: holding that liability foreclosed because there exists no class in the sense that would justify invoking the special relationship exception to the public duty doctrine
C: holding that the special relationship exception did not apply because the decedent was not in defendants custody
D: holding that the special duty doctrine as an exception to the public duty doctrine was a concept distinct from immunity and did not serve to resurrect an otherwise immune claim
B.