Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is to be construed as altering the common law, farther than its words import. It is not to be construed as making any innovation upon the common law which it does not fairly express.” [Ibid, (quoting 3 Norman J. Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction § 61.01, at 77 (4th ed.1986) (footnote omitted) (quoting Shaw v. Railroad Co., 101 U.S. 557, 565, 25 L.Ed 892, 894 (1880))).] Coincident with that interpretive canon is our tradition of giving “narrow range” to statutes granting immunity from tort liability because they leave “unredressed injury and loss resulting from wrongful conduct.” Harrison v. Middlesex Water Co., 80 N.J. 391, 401, 403 A.2d 910 (1979) (construing strictly landowner’s immunity statute). See also Renz v. Penn Cent. Corp., 87 N.J. 437, 457-58, 435 A.2d 540 (1981) ; Immer v. Risko, 56 N.J. 482, 487-88, 267 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding dormancy statutes should be strictly construed
B. holding that a governments consent to be sued must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign
C. holding that railroad immunity act should be strictly construed
D. holding  2513 to be jurisdictional and therefore must be strictly construed
E. holding that in presence of any doubt a penal statute is to be strictly construed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.