With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by way of “a written opinion to follow,” but that written opinion never issued. If Elson’s testimony was not barred because of the application of New York law, and if admissibility turned on the net-opinion determination, we would simply remand for further amplification from the trial judge on this question. But, in light of the considerable time, expense and energy devoted to bringing the case to this point, we instead have analyzed the parties’ arguments about the sufficiency of Elson’s credentials and methodology. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude his expert testimony did not constitute one or more net opinions, although, as we have already mentioned, the damages claimed by way of the Elson report are not recoverable. 3. Our Ruling Elson provided (3d Cir. 1979) (<HOLDING>). Although the determination as to whether our

A: holding that where the defendants expert described the product design using superlatives namely the safest design you could possibly put on the machine the plaintiff should have been permitted to impeach the expert by inquiring why the safest design possible was modified following the plaintiffs accident
B: holding that an expert could testify that unguarded elevator buttons constituted a design defect despite the experts lack of a specific background in design and manufacture of elevators
C: holding that complaint alleging design defect likely to cause damage failed to state a claim
D: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion
B.