With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of proof that comes into play after an action has been rightfully commenced pursuant to the preexisting common-law cause of action. 322 N.W.2d at 37. Thus, even accepting the State’s analytical framework, it appears that the cause of action in this case is negligence. No one contests that a claim of negligence preexisted the passage of the ITCA. Further, the core purpose of the general waiver of sovereign immunity in the ITCA, subject of course to the enumerated exceptions expressly stated in Iowa Code section 669.14, is to allow the State to be sued “under circumstances where the state, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant for such damage, loss, injury, or death.” Iowa Code § 669.2(3)(a); see also Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 861, 146 N.W.2d 626, 637 (1966) (<HOLDING>). As a result of our previous holdings, we have

A: holding that reversal for a new trial on liability is appropriate only where the error complained of affects only the issues of liability
B: holding that erisa creates no private right of action
C: holding itca does not create new causes of action but creates acceptance of liability under circumstances that would bring private liability into existence
D: holding no liability existed under the circumstances
C.