Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Ind. 249, 297 N.E.2d 425, 427 (1973). In this case the injury to Milledge's ankle is without explanation. It is thus classified as a neutral risk in that the cause of the injury is neither personal to Milledge nor distinctly associated with her employment. The injury would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of her employment placed Milledge in the parking lot where she was injured. In turn, The Oaks has not carried its burden of demonstrating that this unexplained accident, which precipitated the ankle injury, was the result of idiopathic causes. Milledge is thus entitled to compensation under the Indiana Worker's Compensation Act. This does not however end our analysis. Milledge sought worker's compensation not for her ankle injury alone, bu 000) ; Workmen's Comp. Appeal Bd. v. Borough of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that consent to search premises includes consent to search washing machine on those premises
B. holding that negligence in premises defect context generally means failure to use ordinary care to reduce or eliminate unreasonable risk of harm created by premises condition about which owner or occupier of land is aware
C. holding that arising from on premises accidentseven those which under other facts might present a neutral risk ie weather conditionsare compensable
D. holding that criminal conduct on premises was not foreseeable
E. holding that a release of such claims or other matters arising from the beginning of time to the date of execution of this agreement did not protect the defendant from liability arising from unconstitutional conduct that occurred after the agreements execution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.