With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Lakeview Country Club, Inc. v. Superior Products, 325 Ark. 218, 226, 926 S.W.2d 428, 432 (1996) (upholding directed verdict on claims for strict liability, breach of warranty of merchantability, and breach of warranty of fitness for a particular purpose where no connection shown between defendant and product supplier). The undisputed facts of this ease demonstrate that Plaintiff did not ingest any metoclopramide, whether generic or name brand, that was either produced or distributed by Wyeth or Schwarz. Accordingly, Plaintiff has stipulated that exposure to the products of Wyeth and Schwarz did not cause her injury, and her “product liability action” must therefore fail. See National Bank of Commerce of El Dorado, Ark. v. Dow Chemical Co., 165 F.3d 602, 606-07 (8th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff contends that Wyeth and Schwarz

A: holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate negative effect on price or quality
B: holding that a county was entitled to summary judgment where the claims against the individual defendants had failed
C: holding summary judgment appropriate where plaintiff failed to establish product identification
D: holding that summary judgment as to one of plaintiffs claims was appropriate bjecause plaintiff concedes that he cannot establish an essential element of this claim
C.