Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
liability on those who caused toxic tort injuries and those who released hazardous substances into the environment if their responsibility was equal to or greater than fifty percent. Tex Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code § 33.013(c). In such cases, liability was not limited by proportionate responsibility. In 2003, the Legislature revisited that exclusion and repealed it in its entirety. Now, defen dants found liable for these tortious acts are subject to the general proportionate responsibility scheme. The Legislature seemed intent on creating a general scheme of proportionate responsibility for tort claims, subject to specific statutory exclusions. Finally, our controlling interpretation of that statutory scheme has remained in place since our 1993 decision in Smith v. Sewell. 858 S.W.2d at 856 . In the thirteen years since Se-well was
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the settlement agreement here specifically did not contain any admission of liability the plaintiff must therefore prove some liability on the part of defendant
B. holding that federal comparative negligence principles prevailed over state comparative negligence principles on the basis that admiralty is not merely a basis of jurisdiction but instead it is a body of substantive principles as well
C. holding that liability under  1983 requires a causal link to and direct responsibility for the deprivation of rights
D. holding that application of the principles of comparative responsibility to causes of action brought under the dram shop act establishes a consistent and equitable approach to the issue of dramshop liability generally and first party dramshop liability specifically
E. holding itca does not create new causes of action but creates acceptance of liability under circumstances that would bring private liability into existence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.