With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". submitted to trial jury for resolution); Parks v. Pep Boys, 282 N.J.Super. 1, 8-12, 659 A.2d 471 (App.Div.1995) (affirming denial of summary judgment on liability and holding that question whether decedent’s voluntary inhalation of Freon sold by defendant to decedent’s fourteen-year-old companion constituted superseding cause that barred defendant’s liability for negligent sale of Freon raised causation issue for determination by jury at trial). In other contexts, our courts have determined that intervening events constituted superseding causes as a matter of law, where such events were sufficiently extraordinary or so clearly unrelated to the antecedent negligence that imposition of liability would be unreasonable. See Caputzal v. Lindsay Co., 48 N.J. 69, 77-80, 222 A.2d 513 (1966) (<HOLDING>); Meyer v. Board of Ed. of Middletown Twp., 9

A: holding that general negligence question properly submitted issue of contractors negligent installation of water pipe
B: holding that even if defect in water softener caused rusty discoloration of water manufacturer was not liable to plaintiff who suffered idiosyncratic and unanticipated heart attack brought on by fright at sight of discolored water
C: holding subsidence caused by negligent removal of water to be recoverable
D: holding that plaintiffs allegation that defendant had exclusive knowledge as the manufacturer did not support claim that defendant was aware of a defect
B.