With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (l)“Duty” of a third-party company to its customers In Elias, the court analyzed whether a “duty” arose between a third-party hospital (the “defendant”) and a patient (“Elias”). Elias brought a products liability suit against a medical device manufacturer. To determine whether the third-party hospital had a duty to preserve evidence (parts of a medical device removed in an operation) for Elias’ suit against the manufacturer, the court considered two decisions involving injuries to customers of third-party companies, Stupka v. Peoples Cab Co., 437 Pa. 509, 264 A.2d 373 (1970), and O’Connell v. Killington, Ltd., 164 Vt. 73, 665 A.2d 39 (1995). Elias, 710 A.2d at 69. In both decisions, the courts analyzed the primary duty of the third-party company t 485 N.Y.S.2d 876 (N.Y.App.Div.1985) (<HOLDING>); Parker v. Thyssen Mining Const., Inc., 428

A: holding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the defendant did not intend to perform when the promise was made
B: holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger
C: holding that a defendant owed no duty to a plaintiff with regard to the safekeeping of evidence because there was no promise by the defendant or its employees to inspect or safeguard the evidence for the plaintiffs benefit and destruction of physical evidence was not criminal because destruction was innocent and designed to ensure the safety of the defendants employees
D: holding that there was sufficient evidence of innocent intent where both the states and defendants evidence showed that the defendant was coerced at knifepoint to enter
C.