With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". heater and temperature control device. b. Design Defect Claims Based In Contract Plaintiffs’ next theory is that the design defect of the Morflo water heater breached an implied warranty of merchantability. Defendants argue that because there was no design defect in the Morflo water heater or the Robertshaw temperature control device, there was no breach of warranty. In some cases, a rational factfinder could conclude that a design defect that is not actionable in tort may nevertheless support a viable contract claim. That is, the factfinder could simultaneously conclude that a product’s utility outweighs the risk of injury and that the product was not safe for the “ordinary purpose” for which it was marketed and sold. See Denny, 87 N.Y.2d at 263, 639 N.Y.S.2d at 258, 662 N.E.2d at 735 (<HOLDING>) Such a case presents itself infrequently; it

A: holding that jury could rationally find that ford broncos utility as an offroad vehicle outweighed the risk of injury resulting from rollover accidents while also finding that the vehicle was not safe for the ordinary purpose of daily driving for which it was marketed and sold
B: holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary
C: holding that a defendant exercised control over a firearm that was found in a vehicle he was driving
D: holding that plaintiff who slipped and fell on ice while securing cars on his employers motor vehicle carrier preparing to travel was very close to the vehicle and engaged in a task related to the vehicle and therefore was an occupier of a motor vehicle
A.