With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". physical injury as a result of a defendant’s negligent conduct, or who are placed in immediate risk of physical harm by that conduct.” Ex parte Grand Manor, Inc., 778 So.2d 173, 179 (Ala.2000) (citation and quotations omitted) (finding that plaintiffs bringing a claim for negligent manufacture of their mobile home were within the zone of danger due to risk of harm from inappropriate water pressure and faulty electrical wiring); see also AALAR, 716 So.2d at 1147 (providing a lengthy analysis of various theories and tracing the development of the zone of danger test in Alabama). The zone of danger test has been routinely applied in Alabama cases to permit recovery of emotional damages only by those who suffered actual or imminent risk of physical harm. See, e.g. AALAR, 716 So.2d at 1147 (<HOLDING>); White Consol. Industries, Inc. v. Wilkerson,

A: holding car lessee specifically contracted with car lessor for liability for any and all loss or damage to rental car thus barring recovery from insurer under exclusion for liability assumed by contract
B: holding that there was probable cause for arrest where officers knew defendants had recently been with suspected drug dealer officers saw defendants car being maneuvered so as to indicate that surveillance had been detected and when officers approached car defendant attempted to place package under car and then pulled the package back inside the car and closed and locked the car door
C: holding that one plaintiff bringing negligence and wantonness claim against car rental company for failing to remove rental car from stolen car list could not recover mental anguish damages because he was never at risk of physical harm but that fact question existed as to whether other plaintiff was at risk of physical harm when police pulled weapon on him
D: holding that plaintiffs who were in the car during car accident could recover for emotional damages because they were within zone of danger
C.