Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
it did not, Connecticut law abolished the doctrine of assumption of risk when the state adopted its comparative negligence regime in 1973. Conn. Gen.Stat. § 52-572h(i) (“The legal doctrines of last clear chance and assumption of risk to which this section is applicable are abolished.”); Wendland v. Ridgefield Constr. Servs., Inc., 190 Conn. 791, 797, 462 A.2d 1043 (1983); Gomeau v. Forrest, 176 Conn. 523, 525-26, 409 A.2d 1006 (1979); Sabella v. Fritz, No. CV116007373S, 2012 WL 1870979, at *2 (Conn.Super. May 2, 2012) (barring assumption of risk claims “couched in negligence language”); Cahill v. Carella, 43 Conn.Supp. 168, 173, 648 A.2d 169 (Conn.Super.1994) (doctrine of assumption of risk abolished); see also Eichelberg v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 57 F.3d 1179, 1188 (2d Cir.1995) . To date, the Connecticut Supreme Court has
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing doctrine
B. holding that assumption of the risk is not an available defense for civil battery
C. recognizing primary assumption of risk as a viable doctrine
D. recognizing that the assumption of the risk operates merely as a corollary of the absence of a duty
E. recognizing connecticut general statute  52572hi and state case law had eliminated doctrine of assumption of risk
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.