Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the period required to replace it. Damages in Tort, supra § 37.54[1], at 166—67; McCormick, supra § 124. The general rule regarding damages occasioned by the total destruction of one’s motor vehicle has long been limited to recovery simply for the vehicle’s value at the time of destruction. The reason for this rule is not clear. It may be based upon the historical limitation contained in an action for trover at common law; or because plaintiff has the presumed ability to enter the marketplace with the sum awarded and purchase another product; or perhaps upon the theory that in recovering the full value of the vehicle as of the date of destruction, the owner has been made whole. Allanson v. Cummings, 81 A.D.2d 16, 439 N.Y.S.2d 545, 546-47 (1981) (citations and internal quotat 1962) . The rationale supporting this proposition is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding sentence of life imprisonment resulting from a wrongful killing caused by the use of an automobile is not cruel and unusual punishment
B. holding that an employer is only allowed to be reimbursed from a tort recovery to the extent that the recovery duplicates the elements of damage covered by compensation benefits
C. holding that smiejas consent to a contract of hire could be implied from his acceptance of the districts control and direction of his work
D. holding that the court could not condone conditioning recovery on ones financial ability to hire another automobile because plaintiff would be denied compensation for his inconvenience resulting from the wrongful act of the defendant
E. recognizing suit for discriminatory failure to hire when the defendant employer failed to hire another corporation as an independent contractor and a potential employee of the rejected corporation brought suit directly against the defendant employer
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.