Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the injurious instrumentality at the time of the alleged negligence.” Id. at 33, 574 P.2d at 826. ¶ 13 However, we decline to view Jackson as a departure from the rule that a claimant must identify, to a degree of probability, which of multiple defendants controlled the instrumentality that injured him. Notably, the court in Jackson did not reject, but rather reiterated, the general rule that a claimant must bring “circumstantial evidence supporting the inference that the defendant(s) probably is responsible for the harm to the plaintiff.” Id. at 32, 574 P.2d at 825. And, since Jackson, our appellate courts have repeatedly applied the exclusive-control rule without correction from the supreme court. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Otis Elevator, 146 Ariz. 98, 101, 703 P.2d 1247, 1250 (App.1985) ; Gaston v. Hunter, 121 Ariz. 33, 50, 588 P.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings
B. holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings
C. holding res judicata also applies to those in privity with parties
D. holding res ipsa applies to two defendants in joint control of instrumentality
E. holding authority to control limits duty to control
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.