With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that Union Carbide should reasonably have foreseen, and therefore warned against, the use of its oxygen regulator in these circumstances. The rule of the Mitchell case, affirming summary judgment, therefore furnishes adequate ground for full summary judgment in favor of Union Carbide. II. Mr. Dusoe’s Knowledge and Experience in the Operation of Oxy-Acetylene Torches The competence and knowledge of the user may reduce or eliminate the duty of the manufacturer to warn of the risks of the use and foreseeable misuse of the product. In addition to the decisions cited above (Introduction Parts C and D), see Hoffman v. Houghton Chemical Corporation, 434 Mass. 624, 629-31 (2001 ) (dicta), and American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 700 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>), as expressions of the so-called

A: holding that the plaintiff reasonably should have been knowledgeable about the danger of over inflating tires after two years on the job as an agricultural service tireman
B: holding that a motion to intervene filed after final judgment should have been granted
C: holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger
D: holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger
A.