With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 94 N.J. at 144, 462 A.2d 1260, held that, in the context of absolute liability (where the owner has knowledge of the vicious propensity of his dog), plaintiffs contributory negligence is available to the dog owner under the Comparative Negligence Act. Id. at 156, 462 A.2d 1260. The Court adopted the rationale of the strict product liability cases which hold that to establish that plaintiffs contributory negligence is a contributing proximate cause of his injury, “defendant must show that the plaintiff with actual acknowledge of the danger posed by the defective product voluntarily and unreasonably encountered that risk.” Cartel Capital Corp. v. Fireco of New Jersey, 81 N.J. 548, 562-63, 410 A.2d 674 (1980); Cf. Cepeda v. Cumberland Eng’g Co., Inc., 76 N.J. 152, 185, 386 A.2d 816 (1978) (<HOLDING>), overruled in part on other grounds, Suter v.

A: recognizing contributory negligence as a defense to professional malpractice claims
B: holding invalid an instruction regarding intervening cause of act of plaintiff as a defense to strict liability in a case when the former contributory negligence may have been a defense
C: holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury
D: holding that contributory negligence in the sense of mere carelessness or inadvertence is not a defense in strict liability cases
D.