Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by the United States. Claims for vessel owner negligence under § 905 were delineated in Scindia, where the Court held that a vessel owner may be liable in tort for injury to an LHWCA employee if the vessel owner (1) fails to warn the repairman’s employer of a hidden danger that is known, or should have been known in the exercise of reasonable care, 451 U.S. at 167, 101 S.Ct. at 1622; (2) actively involves itself in repair work and negligently causes injury, id.; or (3) fails to intervene upon discovering a dangerous condition and the employer’s failure to correct it. Id. at 175-78, 101 S.Ct. at 1626-28. Contribution may be had against a person where the original plaintiff could have enforced liability against him. See United States v. Standard Oil Co., 495 F.2d 911, 919 (9th Cir.1974) . Because, if the United States had been a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that contribution will lie where no statute precludes recovery from the joint tortfeasor against whom contribution is sought
B. holding original tortfeasor had no right to indemnification because claim properly was for contribution
C. recognizing a right to contribution
D. recognizing necessity of release of joint tortfeasor against whom contribution is sought
E. recognizing right of contribution against joint tortfeasor where release is obtained on his behalf
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.