Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
regarding the school; the implication, therefore, is that Finlay would have received his standard commission for bringing business to the MARQUES if in fact he ever brought such business from the school. The fact that the Ship’s Regulations provided that the captain was solely responsible for the safety of the ship and those on board does not make Finlay liable for the ship’s unseaworthiness, because a shipowner’s duty to provide a seaworthy ship is nondelegable. See Sieracki, 828 U.S. at 94 n. 11, 66 S.Ct. at 877 n. 11. Holding Finlay to be an owner pro hac vice because the Ship’s Regulations made him solely responsible for the safety of the ship would defeat the rule of nondelegability, for it would absolve the owners of liability for unseaworthiness. See Ramos, 423 F.2d at 917-18 . That plaintiffs’ decedents had no contact
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself
B. recognizing the general rule that a property owner is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor
C. holding employer may be hable for sexual harassment of employee by independent contractor
D. holding that owner could not be hable for unseaworthy conditions arising after he has parted with control over his vessel under a demise charter and that a shipowner cannot escape liability by delegating partial control of his vessel to an independent contractor
E. holding authority to control limits duty to control
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.