Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.” Tex. Pen.Code § 1.07(a)(46). The plain language of the statute therefore defines serious bodily injury in terms of bodily injury; though some forms of bodily injury are not “serious bodily injury,” all forms of “serious bodily injury” include bodily injury. Moreover, death is also bodily injury under the plain meaning of the Penal Code because it is an “impairment of physical condition.” See Tex. Pen.Code § 1.07(a)(8). In proving appellant caused the complainant’s death, the State necessarily had to prove that appellant caused bodily injury to the complainant. See Cumbie v. State, 578 S.W.2d 732, 735 (Tex.Crim.App.1979) , overruled on other grounds by Almanza v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that when a defendants negligence causes bodily injury the plaintiff can recover damages for past present and future medical expenses bodily injury and emotional distress
B. holding that divorced parent could not stack their separate um policies for the wrongful death of their son because the insured referred to in the antistacking statute is the person who suffers bodily injury or bodily injury which results in death
C. holding that the fatal injury to a murder victim may be considered as satisfying the bodily injury component of the capital felony of kidnapping with bodily injury
D. holding section 107a17bs plain language does not require that the actor actually intend death or serious bodily injury an object is a deadly weapon if the actor intends a use of the object in which it would be capable of causing death or serious bodily injury
E. holding that death necessarily involves bodily injury as defined in the penal code
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.