With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that a Chesterton product contained asbestos or that any Chesterton product was a substantial factor in causing his injuries. Lindstrom testified that he used Chesterton packing to repair water pumps by placing the packing inside the sealed metal casing of the pump. Lindstrom Depo. at 141-42. Lindstrom admitted that when cutting and installing the Chesterton packing, which was teflon coated, no dust was created. Id. at 142. Without exposure to actual dust or fibers created by a Chesterton product, Lindstrom cannot establish an inference that he was injured by any Chesterton product. Stark, 21 Fed.Appx. at 376; Miller v. American President Lines, Ltd., 989 F.2d 1450, 1465 (6th Cir.1993); Roehling v. National Gypsum Co. Gold Bond Bldg. Products, 786 F.2d 1225, 1228 (4th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Lindstrom admitted that he did

A: holding that when multiple asbestos products exists as potential causes of asbestosis a plaintiff can prevail by showing that the defendants product was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury
B: holding that when a plaintiff can establish that she was in the vicinity in which asbestos dust from defendants products was inhaled a jury can reasonably infer that plaintiff was injured by defendants products
C: recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law
D: holding that a products liability plaintiff was entitled to discovery of redacted adverse reaction reports
B.