With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of facts that would impose a negligence duty on Bren-Tex to warn the Hensens of dangers concerning the used tractor’s lack of a ROPS or to inform the Hensens of the benefits, importance, and availability of a ROPS for this tractor. This alleged negligence duty arguably might be based on section 388 or section 401 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. See Restatement (Second) of ToRts §§ 388, 401 (1966). Whether based on one of these sections or some other source, there was no evidence Bren-Tex owed such a negligence duty in this case because Massey presented no evidence the average user of a tractor would not recognize the dangers of using a tractor without a ROPS or the benefits and availability of a ROPS. See Sauder Custom Fabrication, Inc. v. Boyd, 967 S.W.2d 349, 349-51 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379,

A: holding that if a user actually knows of the danger a failure to warn cannot be a proximate cause of the injury
B: holding there is no duty to warn of risks obvious to the average user of the product
C: holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify
D: holding that no legal duty exists to warn of the health risks of alcohol consumption because such risks are common knowledge
B.