Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
claim that the State negligently placed the barrels. Id. at 251 (emphasis in original). The court explained that the maintenance crew was merely carrying out the policy of the State because the barrel and sign warning system chosen by the crew complied with the department of transportation’s Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Id. Thus, the court held that the decision to warn rather than repair was discretionary, and the decision to use barrels and signs, as opposed to another warning device, was discretionary. Id. In contrast, when a governmental unit fails to maintain public works, such as a storm drainage system, or street and storm sewers, those activities are not discretionary functions. See City of Fort Worth v. Gay, 977 S.W.2d 814, 817 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.) . In this case, the State contends that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a city could not be held vicariously liable for the act of a magistrate who was immune from liability
B. holding a city liable for personal injuries caused by a driver colliding with a girder in the center of a city street where the city did not give a warning
C. holding city not immune from liability where claims were based on the citys failure to maintain clean and inspect an area of the street
D. recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability
E. holding that a jurys finding that a city had delegated its final policymaking authority in the area of law enforcement to a city police chief was supported by the evidence and warranted imposing liability upon the city
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.