With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “industry wide safety standards,” and the manufacturer relied on the safety standards. 101 Wn. App. at 857-62. No duty can exist under the rescue doctrine without this privity of reliance. ¶14 In sum, a public entity has a duty under the rescue doctrine when an injured party reasonably relies, or is in privity with a third party that reasonably relies, on its promise to aid or warn. See, e.g., Bratton v. Welp, 145 Wn.2d 572, 576-77, 39 P.3d 959 (2002); Babcock v. Mason County Fire Dist. No. 6, 144 Wn.2d 774, 778, 30 P.3d 1261 (2001) (finding no duty to aid because reliance was unreasonable); Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 785, 954 P.2d 237 (1998) (analyzing duty to aid under “special relationship” doctrine); Honcoop v. State, 111 Wn.2d 182, 192-93, 759 P.2d 1188 (1988) (<HOLDING>). But the Osborns relied on neither Mason

A: holding duty to warn exists only if public entity makes assurances that could give rise to justifiable reliance
B: holding that such a duty exists
C: holding the voluntary assumption of a duty will give rise to liability if the performance is not done with reasonable care
D: holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through general knowledge
A.