With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Martinez for failing to prove what would have happened if Deputy Johnson had discontinued the chase. This is not the law. See id.; Wadewitz, 951 S.W.2d at 467 (“Without taking both sides of the Chambers good faith balancing test into account, neither Wadewitz nor his expert witness had a suitable basis for concluding that a reasonable officer in Wa-dewitz’s position could or could not have believed that Wadewitz’s.actions were justified.”). , As the passage above highlights, the majority opinion discourages any investigation by the County into why the chase began or why it might need to continue and discourages any communication to the officer of any information that might allow him to better evaluate the need to continue the chase. If ig 9 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). I will touch on it briefly. Section 101.055

A: holding arguments not raised on appeal waived
B: holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived
C: holding that because court had determined immunity had not been waived under section 101021 court did not need to analyze arguments relevant to section 101055
D: holding that arguments not raised before the trial court are waived
C.