Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. 4B Elevator Components Unlimited, 148 F.3d 943, 946 (8th Cir.1998) (applying Section 388 under Iowa law); Erickson v. Monarch Indus., 216 Neb. 875, 347 N.W.2d 99, 108 (1984) (stating that “warning of a product’s defects is unnecessary where the supplier of the product has reason to believe that those who will use it will have such special experience as will enable them to perceive the danger”) (quotation omitted). U t] was under a duty to warn, its failure to do so could not have been the proximate cause of the accident because [the employer] and the plaintiffs decedent [a supervisory employee] were aware of the danger”); Peitzmeier v. Hennessy Indus., Inc., 97 F.3d 293, 300 (8th Cir.1996) (same); Hammond v. Nebraska Natural Gas Co., 204 Neb. 80, 86, 281 N.W.2d 520, 524 (1979) . Accordingly, under Nebraska law, the “rule of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that failure to warn of a gas leak could not have been a proximate cause of the accident if the gas company already knew of the leak
B. holding that if a user actually knows of the danger a failure to warn cannot be a proximate cause of the injury
C. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury
D. holding defendants act of disconnecting gas service for nonpayment was not proximate cause of plaintiffs carbon monoxide poisoning
E. holding that a physicians negligence need only be a proximate cause not the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.