With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". [she and her husband] made the right decision in buying the home.” While Mrs. Dykes’s testimony, when reviewed in a light most favorable to her, tends to show that she was anxious for her children’s safety and that she worried a great deal, her testimony does not constitute substantial evidence indicating that, as a result of the alleged negligent manufacture of the mobile home, she “fear[ed] for [her] own physical safety.” AALAR, 716 So.2d at 1148. At most, the evidence presented by the Dykeses in support of their negligent-manufacture claim shows injury to the mobile home itself, and Alabama law does not permit recovery of mental-anguish damages based on a claim of simple negligence where the negligent act or omission results in mere injury to property. See Bowers, 752 So.2d at 1204 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, although the Dykeses presented

A: holding person is at grave risk of death when directly in the line of fire or when in a zone of danger
B: holding that plaintiffs were not in the zone of danger and could not recover for emotional distress because they were at not home when their house caught on fire
C: holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire
D: holding that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to award mentalanguish damages to the plaintiff homeowners based on their negligence claim where fire destroyed the house but they suffered no physical injury and were not in the zone of danger
D.