With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". recognized as necessary for the protection of Plaintiffs property— that is, testing, segregating, reporting results on, and directing the release or destruction of Plaintiffs carcasses—and then allegedly negligently rendered those services. Plaintiff argues that FSIS’s negligent performance of those services increased its risk of harm and that it relied upon FSIS to perform the services undertaken non-negligently. The government can be held liable under Section 323 only if the FSIS inspected the meat at Plaintiffs facility for the benefit of Plaintiff. See Patentas, 687 F.2d at 716 (“The government may be held liable under section 323 only if the Coast Guard inspected [the vessel] for the benefit of appellants.”); see also Barnes v. United States, 448 F.3d 1065, 1067 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot meet

A: holding that the only time that the notice provisions of the federal statute do not come into play is when the patent is directed to only a method or process
B: holding that missouris good samaritan rule which incorporates section 323 comes into play only where the plaintiff is the intended beneficiary of the defendants action
C: holding that the better rule is to allow only personal representatives not beneficiaries to sue for estateplanning malpractice because what may be good for one beneficiary is not necessarily good for the estate as a whole
D: holding that with respect to the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule article 1 section 11 of the wisconsin constitution affords additional protection than that which is afforded by the fourth amendment
B.