Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(1984) (citing Menard v. Newhall, 135 Vt. 53, 55, 373 A.2d 505, 507 (1977)); see also McCullock I, 981 F.2d at 658 n. 2 (“The Ostrowski court applied a single standard to plaintiffs claims of negligent failure to warn and strict products liability.”). So, under Vermont law, to sustain a verdict premised on a “failure to warn” theory, plaintiff must provide evidence from which a reasonable jury could find: (1) that defendant owed a duty to warn plaintiff; (2) lack of warning made the product unreasonably dangerous, hence defective; and (3) defendant’s failure to warn was the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury. Menard, 135 Vt. at 54, 373 A.2d at 506; see Ostrowski, 144 Vt. at 308, 479 A.2d at 127; see also Hobart v. P.J.’s Auto Village, Inc., 136 Vt. 287, 289, 388 A.2d 419, 420 (1978) ; see also Scronce v. Howard Bros. Discount
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if a user actually knows of the danger a failure to warn cannot be a proximate cause of the injury
B. holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury
C. holding that whether the negligent acts of parties combined to become the proximate cause of the injury was a question for the jury
D. holding that use of tangible property must be proximate cause of injury and that property does not cause injury if it does no more than furnish the condition that makes the injury possible
E. holding that negligence must be the proximate cause of injury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.