Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
risk of equine activities, as defined in § 6 — 5—337(b)(6). Estes does not dispute that the horse became startled, and he did not argue before the trial court that Croxton’s failure to assess A.G.E.’s riding ability was a cause of the accident. Estes’s contention is that the defendants are not entitled to immunity under the Equine Act because the defendants “made no attempt to assess what type of rider the minor child was, let alone whether she should have even been on the horse in the first place. Without the defendants fulfilling their obligations, i.e., inquiring to a rider’s ability and handling the horse in accordance with such abilities, the defendants are not entitled to the protection of the Act. See Willeck ex tel. Willeck v. Mrotek, Inc., 616 N.W.2d 526 (Wis.App.2000) .” In support of this argument, Estes cites
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the act inapplicable to the united states in its role as employer
B. holding equine activities liability act immunity inapplicable because the sponsor did not find out riders actual ability before matching horse with rider
C. recognizing that under texas law governmental immunity embraces two principles immunity from liability and immunity from suit
D. holding immunity from liability is not jurisdictional
E. holding that the tucker act does not waive the governments sovereign immunity for federal reserve activities
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.