Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. See Mfrs. & Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 330 S.C. 152, 498 S.E.2d 222, 226 n. 1 (1998). 9 . See O’Rear v. B.H., 69 So.3d 106 (Ala.2011) (doctor allegedly molested his minor patient); Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. D.A.C., 710 So.2d 1274 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (teacher allegedly molested one of his minor students); see also D.B.C. v. Pierson, 2014 WL 2155017 (N.D.Ala. 2014) (adults who owned modeling agency photographed and published sexual 68 (M.D.Fla. 1989) (under Florida law, 15 year old’s intent inferred); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Roelfs, 698 F.Supp. 815 (D.Alaska 1987) (16 year old’s intent inferred); West Virginia Fire & Cas. Co. v. Stanley, 216 W.Va. 40, 602 S.E.2d 483, 493 (2004) ; Cuervo v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 76 Ohio St.3d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that employers intent may be inferred through circumstantial evidence
B. holding that the rule applies regardless of the comparative fault of the employer versus the employee
C. holding intent may be inferred from large amount of marijuana
D. holding that inferred intent rule applies regardless of the age of the actor
E. holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.