With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.W.2d 877, 878 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1973, no writ). Moreover, to the extent Massey contends that Bren-Tex would also be independently liable for failing, while refurbishing the tractor, to install a ROPS, any such liability would al t. k. 12 . A report prepared by the Hensens’ expert witness was admitted into evidence by Massey and stated that Bren-Tex should have: (1) known of the severe injury potential of tractor rollovers; (2) known that a ROPS would have reduced suc , 18 (Ky.Ct.App.1983) (stating, "We know of no reason to obligate a seller to vigorously promote every optional safety device which might be available.”). 14 . Bren-Tex was not a Massey dealer and there is no evidence of what, if any, knowledge Bren-Tex had about the availability o 6-18 (Mo.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Livengood v. ABS Contractors Supply, 126 Ohio

A: holding that a restaurant supply employer had no duty to warn a delivery truck driver employee of the danger associated with water on a floor because that is a commonly known hazard and obvious to everyone
B: holding under section 388 of the restatement seoond of torts defendants had no duty to warn injured tractor driver that tractor lacked a rops because this was an open and obvious danger
C: holding that seller of frontend loader had no duty to warn injured worker concerning the dangers of operating the loader without a rops because the dangers were obvious under an objective standard
D: holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger
B.