With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 475, 226 A.2d 186. To the contrary, the Kern court noted, the Legislature in enacting the Survivor’s Act broadly intended to afford “executors or administrators an action for any trespass done to the person or property of their testator or intestate.” Id. at 472, 226 A.2d 186. Further, the court observed, prior reported cases involving survival actions appeared to recognize, without expressly so holding, that punitive damages were in fact a permissible form of recovery under the Survivor’s Act. Id. at 474-75, 226 A.2d 186 (citing Meehan, supra, 181 F.Supp. 594 (upholding punitive damages of $1000 for reckless and wanton conduct that brought about conscious pain and suffering of decedent as well as death), and Messina v. Petroli, 11 N.J. Misc. 583, 587, 167 A. 767 (Cir.Ct.1933) (<HOLDING>)). Thus, in Kern, supra, the plaintiffs claims

A: recognizing the availability of a cause of action by manufacturer against supplier under consumer fraud act
B: holding that plaintiff could recover both treble damages under state racketeering statute and punitive damages under fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims because the statute provided that actions brought under it are remedial and not punitive and that civil remedies provided under it are supplemental and not mutually exclusive
C: holding pain and suffering compensable under survival statute and impliedly recognizing availability of punitive damages in action under executors and administrators act
D: holding punitive damages unavailable for survival claims under general maritime law
C.