With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". course of law.’ ” Hintz, 305 S.W.3d at 772 (quoting Tex. Const, art. I, § 13). “This provision, among other things, prohibits the Legislature from unreasonably restricting common law causes of action.” Id. (quoting Thomas v. Oldham, 895 S.W.2d 352, 357 (Tex.1995)). When challenging a statute as unconstitutional under the open courts provision, the plaintiff must first demonstrate that the statute restricts a well-recognized common law cause of action. Id. (citing Flores v. Law, 8 S.W.3d 785, 787 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet.denied)); see also Thomas, 895 S.W.2d at 357. Because the open courts provision affects common law claims and not statutory claims, the provision does not apply to claims under the TTCA. Villasan, 166 S.W.3d at 766; see also Thomas, 895 S.W.2d at 357-58 (<HOLDING>); Hintz, 305 S.W.3d at 772-73 (holding current

A: holding that since there was no common law cause of action for wrongful death the texas constitutions open courts provision did not bar limiting rights and remedies that were created exclusively by statute
B: recognizing that municipalities immunity from punitive damage awards under section 1983 does not render them immune from suit altogether
C: holding predecessor to section 101106 did not violate open courts provision because ttca broadened rather than restricted an injured partys remedies because municipalities performing governmental functions were completely immune from liability under common law
D: recognizing that the municipal function test is used to determine both whether municipalities are immune from suit and immune from running of statutes of limitations
C.