With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 23, 1990). But part of our basis for concluding that the limitation did not violate public policy was that it left intact NSP’s liability for all other kinds of injury. Id. The Minnesota legislature has not plainly altered a person’s right to bring a common-law-tort claim against a utility, and it is not appropriate for the judiciary to undertake an alteration of this magnitude under the guise of interpretation. Courts in Minnesota have long heard cases alleging injuries by a utility, and we find no basis for curtailing that division of authority. See, e.g., Mahowald v. Minn. Gas Co., 344 N.W.2d 856, 864 (Minn.1984) (reversing for failure to give res ipsa instruction in negligence case involving gas leak); Steinbrecher v. McLeod Coop. Power Ass’n, 392 N.W.2d 709, 712 (Minn.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). In summary, we conclude that the filed-rate

A: holding that an action against a tribal enterprise is an action against the tribe itself
B: holding that in wrongfuldeath action against electricity provider negligence issues were for jury
C: holding petition alleging negligence was a personal action
D: holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract
B.