Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is a misreading of the decision for review. In addition to erroneously concluding that the action should proceed to a jury determination, the trial court further erred by instructing the jury as if Bombay was an ordinary negligence case. The trial court instructed the jury on the liability issue without using the word “intentional.” The trial court then gave an instruction on comparative negligence and submitted to the jury a verdict form that allowed for a finding of comparative negligence. Such instruction was directly contrary to section 768.81(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided that comparative negligence was not applicable in an intentional tort action, a principle which had long been the common law of Florida. See Mazzilli v. Doud, 485 So.2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) , review dismissed, 492 So.2d 1333 (Fla.1986);
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that liability insurer had duty to defend insured against complaint that alleged intentional tort and negligence in the alternative even when policy excluded coverage for intentional torts
B. holding that the obviousness of a danger is a factor for comparative negligence not a bar to recovery
C. holding comparative negligence not defense to intentional tort
D. holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well
E. recognizing tort of negligence by words
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.