With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a reasonable person would conclude that the utility of the product did not outweigh the risk inherent in marketing a product designed in that manner.” Elsroth v. Johnson & Johnson, 700 F.Supp. 151, 161 (S.D.N.Y.1988). The plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the packaging, as designed, “was not reasonably safe because there was a substantial likelihood of harm and it was feasible to design the product in a safer manner.” Id. at 162 (emphasis omitted). Plaintiff cannot establish that it was feasible for Amgen to design the Epo-gen in a safer manner. Even if Amgen was aware of the diversion and counterfeiting of prescription drugs, and that its packaging could be violated by a counterfeiter, no packaging is completely tamper-proof. See, e.g. Elsroth, 700 F.Supp. at 161 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, even, if plaintiff were

A: holding that it is not
B: recognizing that a state courts determination is not an unreasonable application of law merely because it is erroneous
C: recognizing the necessity of permanency for juveniles at the earliest possible age
D: recognizing that tamperproof packaging of overthecounter drugs is not possible
D.