With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to benefit those individuals who were either unaware of their injuries or prevented from discovering them. See Cart, 188 W.Va. at 244-45, 423 S.E.2d at 647-48; Gaither, 199 W.Va. at 713, 487 S.E.2d at 908 (recognizing that “discovery rule has its origins in the fact that many times an injured party is unable to know of the existence of any injury or its cause”). When this Court augmented the app as not been vitiated with the Court’s modification of the rule’s application. Where a plaintiff knows of his injury, and the facts surrounding that injury place him on notice of the possible breach of a duty of care, that plaintiff has an affirmative duty to further and fully investigate the facts surrounding that potential breach. See Harrison v. Davis, 197 W.Va. 651, 478 S.E.2d 104 (1996) (<HOLDING>). In this case, had the most basic and routine

A: holding that plaintiff mothers failure to exercise reasonable diligence in discovering injuries associated with the birth and wrongful death of her daughter precluded tolling of statute of limitations by discovery rule
B: holding that discovery rule applied to wrongful death action predicated on medical malpractice
C: holding that plaintiffs failure to prove decedents death was caused by the wrongful acts of the defendant precludes any recovery of wrongful death damages under mississippis wrongful death statute
D: recognizing cause of action for wrongful death
A.