Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
who stand in a particular relation to one another.” Tort, Black’s Law Dictionary 1626 (10th ed. 2014). As such, successful tort actions “are premised on the existence of a legal duty.” Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 522,112 S.Ct. at 2620 (plurality opinion); see also Geier, 529 U.S, at 881, 120 S.Ct. at 1925 (characterizing a successful tort action as “a state law—i.e., a rule of state tort law imposing ... a duty”). Strict-liability and negligence claims like those at issue here are no exception. Mut. Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett, 570 U.S. -, -, 133 S.Ct. 2466, 2474 n.1, 186 L.Ed.2d 607 (2013) (“[Mjost common-law causes of action for negligence and strict liability ... exist ... to ... impose affirmative duties.”); Samuel Friedland Family Enters. v. Amoroso, 630 So.2d 1067, 1068 n.3 (Fla. 1994) ; Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer LLC, 39 So.3d 1216,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control
B. recognizing in the strictliability context that one who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer  is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused even though the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product quoting restatement second of torts  402a
C. holding there is no authority that provides that the mere sale of a consumer electronics product in california can create a duty to disclose any defect that may occur during the useful life of the product
D. holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury
E. holding that the plaintiff must first establish that the product left the sellers hands in a defective condition after which the seller may introduce evidence that its product was substantially altered after leaving its possession which evidence may rebut or overcome the plaintiffs showing that his injuries were a result of the products defect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.