With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". testified that the design drawings should be consulted and that inspections and maintenance would ensure that repairs are done correctly. Even if the FDOT staff involved in the actual 2009 repair failed to fully appreciate the complexity of the complete design of the ET-Plus guardrail system, they at least had an understanding that there were two types of systems — one with a parallel end treatment, and one with a flared end treatment. The guardrail FDOT assembled after the 2009 accident at the corner of Groveland Airport Road and State Road 33 was neither. On this record, the Court finds Pike has failed to come forward-with more than a scintilla of evidence to rebut Trinity’s showing that FDOT was a sophisticated user of the ET-Plus guardrail system. See Parker, 445 Fed.Appx. at 235 (<HOLDING>). Y. Conclusion For his own reasons, Pike gave

A: holding that a passenger in a vehicle who was injured when a pool chemical placed in back seat by driver combusted stated a cause of action in strict liability against manufacturer
B: holding that oil suppliers had no duty to warn of danger to commercial customer whose negligence or oversight resulted in explosion that injured its employee
C: holding no duty owed by chemical supplier to warn manufacturers employees where suppliers customer the manufacturer was sophisticated user of the chemical which had used the chemical for years had produced its own training materials and used its own staff to advise employees on procedures for handling chemical
D: holding that a county had no duty to bargain with a union of its employees
C.