Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
which it relates. Thus, when the affirmative defense of comparative negligence is raised, a negligence claim and the affirmative defenses of comparative and/or contributory negligence are inextricably intertwined.”). In a case raising the same issue as the one before us, the Kansas Court of Appeals reasoned as follows: The process of determining comparative fault, when only two parties are involved, is a “zero sum game.” When negligence is moved out of the plaintiffs column, it must move into the defendant’s column. Evidence that tends to exculpate plaintiff in a comparative fault case places fault upon the defendant, and evidence of subsequent remedial conduct to prove negligence is prohibited [by Rule 407]. DiPietro v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 28 Kan. App.2d 372, 16 P.3d 986, 991 (2000) . ¶ 19 We agree with the analysis in DiPie-tro
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence of other crimes inadmissible when identity is not at issue
B. holding that the bar against the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures comes into play only where negligence or other culpable conduct is alleged
C. holding that to the extent plaintiffs present action is based on conduct subsequent to the original action it is not barred by the prior litigation
D. holding first offender plea admissible to disprove or contradict testimony of the plaintiff
E. holding that evidence of subsequent remedial conduct to disprove a plaintiffs comparative fault is inadmissible
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.