Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was that of an injury to her ribs and shoulder from falling onto the springs and frame, not the risk of permanent quadriplegia from a broken neck as the result of being propelled onto the ground. 15 . As will be discussed further below, there is a genuine and material factual dispute as to whether these warnings met the industry standard. 16 . The court acknowledged, however, that "CPLR article 14-A assumption of risk, a species of comparative fault, is a valid defense to any action to recover damages for personal injury, including a products liability action.” Lamey, id. at 166 n. 2, 594 N.Y.S.2d 490 (citing Voss v. Black & Decker Mfg. Co., 59 N.Y.2d 102, 106, 463 N.Y.S.2d 398, 450 N.E.2d 204 (1983) and Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330, 342, 345 N.Y.S.2d 461, 298 N.E.2d 622 (1973) ). 17 . I note that a lower appellate court in
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for subsequent changes to an otherwise safe product where such alterations are reasonably foreseeable
B. 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
C. holding that manufacturer is not liable for injuries to employee by product manufactured to employers plans and specifications provided the defect is not so obviously patently or glaringly dangerous that a manufacturer exercising ordinary care under the circumstances then existing would not follow them
D. holding manufacturer liable for defective product provided that plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defecl and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury
E. holding a manufacturer strictly liable in tort for injury to plaintiff caused by defective power tool
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.