With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Colorado, a plaintiff must establish actual and reasonable rebanee on a false statement; a party cannot — as a matter of law — continue to rely on a previously expressed false statement after the truth is aired. And, of course, we have just found that the rafting company’s written warnings accomplished just that — adequately airing the truth about the nature of the risks Ms. Apolinar faced. Neither do we see how we might arrive at a different result just because this claim is denominated in fraud rather than negligence. The inquiries prescribed for us by law are virtually indistinguishable (was the truth fairly and fully disclosed?), the facts are the same (the release’s warnings), and it follows that the result should be the same. See Vinton v. Virzi, 269 P.3d 1242, 1247 (Colo.2012) (<HOLDING>); Morrison v. Goodspeed, 100 Colo. 470, 68 P.2d

A: holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions
B: holding that personal jurisdiction over a party is proper if the party has sufficient minimum contacts with the forum
C: holding if a party has access to information that would have led to the true facts that party has no right to rely on a prior false representation
D: holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal
C.