With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". negligence, the court awarded Sardina a total of $303,823.29 in general and special damages, damages for maintenance and cure, and attorneys’ fees. On appeal, Sardina challenges the court’s findings as to his lost future earnings and work life expectancy, its calculation of his attorneys’ fees, its omission of prejudgment interest, its finding of contributory negligence, and its award of general damages. Jurisdiction The Trial Division had jurisdiction over Sardina’s maritime claims for “unseaworthiness” and “maintenance and cure” pursuant to A.S.C.A. § 3.0208(a)(3). Because Sardina brought his Jones Act claim in admiralty pursuant to T.C.R.C.P. 9(h), it also fell within the Trial Division’s maritime jurisdiction. See Doucet v. Wheless Drilling Co., 461 F.2d 336, 339 (5th Cir. 1972) (<HOLDING>). Alternatively, the Trial Division had

A: holding jones act insufficiently clear to abrogate immunity
B: holding that the limitation act does not apply to claims brought under the clean water act
C: holding that tort actions brought against a state actor must be brought in the illinois court of claims and the district courts dismissal of such claims was proper
D: holding that jones act claims can be brought either in admiralty or at law
D.