With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 28, 33-34, 70 N.W.2d 886, 891 (1955). A person injured by an intoxicated person has no common-law claim against a liquor vendor for illegally selling alcohol to the intoxicated person. Id. Causes of action created by statute in derogation of common law are generally strictly construed. Id. at 43-44, 70 N.W.2d at 897. The CDA also provides that a person who is sued for causing the injury of another while intoxicated may bring an action against a liquor vendor for contribution and indemnification if the person serves written notice to the vendor within 120 days from the date of the injury. Minn.Stat. § 340A.802, subd. 2 (2000) (barring an action for contribution and indemnity if notice is not provided within 120 days of the injury); Oslund v. Johnson, 578 N.W.2d 353, 357 (Minn.1998) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the CDA contains a statute of

A: holding that more than notice to a defendant is required
B: holding that a provision of the constitution is to be construed in the sense in which it was understood by the framers and the people at the time of its adoption but that if new products or circumstances that did not exist at the time the constitutional provision was enacted fall within the meaning of the provision the constitutional provision applies to them
C: holding that notice to supervisor is notice to city
D: holding that a tortfeasor seeking contribution and indemnification is required to follow the 120day notice provision in the cda and not the 60day notice provision
D.