Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the court erred because Wal-Mart retained control over his work and is therefore directly liable for his injuries. A. Premises Liability (Vicarious) under Restatement § 422(a) ¶ 12 Arizona courts have consistently recognized that a landowner is not liable for the negligent conduct of an independent contractor unless the landowner has been independently negligent. See Welker v. Kennecott, 1 Ariz.App. 395, 401-04, 403 P.2d 330, 336-39 (1965) (citing Restatement (First) of Torts § 409 (1934) (“Except as stated in §§ 410 to 429, the employer of an independent contractor is not subject to liability for bodily harm caused to another by a tortious act or omission of the contractor or his servants.”)); see also E.L. Jones Constr. Co. v. Noland, 105 Ariz. 446, 454, 466 P.2d 740, 748 (1970) ; Restatement § 409 cmt. b (explaining that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing general rule
B. holding in part that the liability insurance company of the subcontractor which had named the general contractor as an additional insured on the subcontractors policy was liable to reimburse the general contractor for a settlement payment the general contractor had made to the subcontractors employee
C. holding that subcontractor was not obligated to indemnify general contractor for general contractors own negligence where indemnification clause did not expressly state that subcontractor would indemnify general contractor for such negligence
D. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor
E. holding a premises owner is a general contractor for purposes of the statutory employer provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.