Definition: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Input: rise to a duty of reasonable care to third parties. Shepard, 390 N.W.2d at 241. Thus, the physician's special relationship to Eric's mother gave rise to a duty that also extended to Eric, who was, "[a]s plaintiffs son and a member of her household," a "foreseeable potential victim of [the physician's] conduct." Id. Similarly, in Welke, the court concluded that a duty existed for the benefit of a third party where a physician injected his patient with an unknown substance, let the patient drive his vehicle, and the patient subsequently killed another individual while driving. 375 N.W.2d at 406. The third party, the court held, was "an innocent driver within the scope of foreseeable risk" by virtue of the physician's relationship with his patient. Id.; see also Duvall, 362 N.W.2d at 279 (<HOLDING>); Davis v. Lhim, 124 Mich.App. 291, 335 N.W.2d
Holding statements: (A) holding that a psychiatrist owed a duty to a person foreseeably injured by his patient (B) holding that psychiatrist has duty to third parties to exercise due care in treatment and release of committed patients (C) holding that when a psychiatrist determines or should determine that a patient poses a serious threat of danger to a third party the psychiatrist has a duty of reasonable care to that party (D) holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave (E) holding that psychiatrist had duty to protect individuals endangered by his epileptic patient
Output:
holding that a psychiatrist owed a duty to a person foreseeably injured by his patient