Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a “custom, rule, and/or procedure among international long-haul carriers [by failing] to warn, advise and/or take adequate precautions to inform passengers of the risk of DVT.” Pis.’ First Am. Compl. at ¶ 20. Many courts have recognized that failing to carry out routine procedures in the usual way can constitute an accident under the Warsaw Convention. See, e.g., Fishman v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 132 F.3d 138, 143 (2d Cir.1998) (applying a hot compress to relieve ear pain, which is a routine procedure, can be an accident if the water is excessively hot); Fulop v. Malev Hungarian Airlines, 175 F.Supp.2d 651, 669 (S.D.N.Y.2001) (failing to divert an airplane w to warn is irrelevant to the accident inquiry. Cf. Magan v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 181 F.Supp.2d 396, 402-03 (S.D.N.Y.2002) . The Sprayregen is inapposite; it involved an
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where the dispositive issue in an administrative proceeding was whether an accident occurred as the plaintiff alleged it did collateral estoppel did not bar litigation of whether the accident was workrelated because that issue had not yet been litigated
B. holding that ordinary turbulence is not an accident and that the flight crews failure to knock on the lavatory door to warn the plaintiff of the turbulence was irrelevant to the accident inquiry
C. holding that an insureds personal belief that he was not liable for an accident provided no basis for submitting the question of the reasonableness of his delay in notification to a jury when the insured knew the day after the accident that it had been claimed that the cable he had installed had caused the accident
D. holding that summary judgment on plaintiffs res ipsa loquitur theory was precluded both because there existed genuine issues of material fact as to the cause of the accident and whether or not one of the defendants had exclusive control over the instrumentality of the accident
E. holding that probable cause was clearly present justifying the taking of a blood sample without the defendants consent when it was established that the defendant was involved in an automobile accident and the police noticed liquor on his breath at the scene of the accident and at the hospital
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.