With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and strict liability failure to warn, it also recognizes the “sophisticated user” or “learned intermediary” doctrines which relieve a manufacturer of the duty to warn where there is a sophisticated user or learned intermedi ary with knowledge of the hazard. See Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So.2d 102, 105 (Fla.1989) (approving appellate court opinion affirming summary judgment for drug manufacturer in suit by patient where prescribing physician was a learned intermediary; holding as a matter of law that inadequate warning could not have been proximate cause of injury because doctor was aware of danger, thus manufacturer could not be penalized for doctor’s failure to convey the danger to the patient); Edward M. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Vaughn, 491 So.2d 551, 552-54 (Fla.1986) (<HOLDING>); Talquin Electric Co-op., Inc. v. Amchem

A: holding that road contractor had no liability for injuries suffered by auto accident victim as a matter of law where fdot had responsibility for testing examining maintaining and repairing the roadway and was a highly knowledgeable and sophisticated purchaser
B: holding that contractor owed general negligence duty to thirdparty by dangerous condition contractor created on road
C: holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear
D: holding that plaintiff had no claim under fmla because she had suffered no diminution in income and incurred no costs as a result of alleged violation
A.