Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
55, 604 N.E.2d 117, 119 (1992); Kappel v. Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp., 39 N.Y.2d 1039, 387 N.Y.S.2d 251, 355 N.E.2d 305, 306 (1976)). Such limitation of liability stems from “the basic common-law principle that ‘an owner or general contractor [sh]ould not be held responsible for the negligent acts of others over whom [the owner or general contractor] had no direction or con trol.’ Ross, 601 N.Y.S.2d 49, 618 N.E.2d at 88 (quoting Allen v. Cloutier Constr. Coiy., 44 NY.2d 290, 405 NY.S.2d 630, 376 N.E.2d 1276, 1278 (1978)). Liability in the absence of direction or control over the worksite may attach only where the person to be charged in fact caused the defective condition giving rise to injury. See Murphy v. Columbia Univ., 4 A.D.3d 200, 773 N.Y.S.2d 10, 13 (N.Y.App.Div. 2004) . Here, the record demonstrates clearly that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a general contractors right to forbid the work from being performed in a dangerous manner and the fact that he would have stopped the work and required protective equipment had he seen the employee of the independent contractor not using such equipment merely showed the possibility of control not actual control
B. holding that it is the claimants burden to show that the injury was the result of an accident that not only arose in the course of the employment but that it also grew out of or resulted from the employment
C. holding that where the employment of the injured employees was the occasion of the injury the injuries arose out of employment
D. holding that proof of control was not required where the injury arose from the condition of the work place created by or known to the contraetor
E. holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.