Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
and by rendering a take-nothing judgment in favor of Coastal. Francis contends that disregarding the verdict conflicts with the court’s footnote recited above, that “there is some evidence” that Coastal was negligent and proximately caused Francis’s injuries. Francis’s arguments propose that he may still recover against Coastal under the common law, beyond chapter 95, and thus challenge the trial court’s conclusion that chapter 95 preempts all common-law negligence claims against Coastal under the circumstances of this case and is, therefore, Francis’s exclusive remedy against Coastal. We agree with the trial court that chapter 95 controls this case, is Francis’s exclusive remedy against Coastal, and precludes common-law negligence liability in Coastal. See Fisher, 16 S.W.3d at 201 ; see also Dyall v. Simpson Pasadena Paper Co.,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that chapter 95 controlled liability for injuries arising from failure to provide a safe workplace
B. recognizing a state law tort claim for negligence arising under a duty to provide a safe work environment
C. holding first that injuries sustained during contact sports were foreseeable then deciding that public policy insulated the defendant from liability for those injuries
D. holding that employer has nondelegable duty to provide safe workplace
E. holding that passenger cannot maintain action for breach of implied warranty to provide safe passage
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.