With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". dictates how cases against the Engle defendants should proceed. If the Majority mean to suggest that Douglas III instituted an "unorthodox” and "novel notion of res judicata,” Ante at 1183, 1184— 85, our duty as a recognizing court, under Florida law and the U.S. Constitution, would shift to evaluating whether the newly created law “eliminate[s] the basic common law protection against an arbitrary deprivation of property.” Douglas III, 110 So.3d at 431 (citing Oberg, 512 U.S. at 432, 114 S.Ct. at 2339). Does it, for example, allow plaintiffs to preclude the Engle defendants from litigating matters—such as whether their tortious conduct caused an individual plaintiff's injuries— on which they have never had an opportunity to be heard? Douglas III leaves no doubt. See 110 So.3d at 429 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the law to which the Majority hint

A: holding that when a plaintiff proves that addiction to the engle defendants cigarettes containing nicotine was a legal cause of the injuries alleged injury as a result of the engle defendants conduct is assumed emphasis added
B: holding that the injury was inflicted by the defendant when it occurred as a result of the defendants combative conduct
C: holding the plaintiff must show that the defendants departure from such generally recognized practices and procedures was the proximate cause of the plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages
D: holding a person commits aggravated dui when his or her driving under the influence was a proximate cause of the injuries  citation not the sole and immediate cause of the victims injuries emphasis omitted
A.