With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (1987) (and its progeny), which holds that the very nature of prescription drugs themselves precludes the imposition of a warrant of fitness for “ordinary purposes,” as each individual for whom they are prescribed is a unique organism who must be examined by a physician who is aware of the nature of the patient’s condition as well as the medical history of the patient. The reasoning in Makripodis, which involved a claim against a pharmacist, has subsequently been applied to bar breach of implied warranty claims against pharmaceutical manufacturers and makers of medical devices. See Luke v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 1998 WL 1781624 at *6 (Pa.Com.Pl.1998); Murray v. Synthes (U.S.A.), Inc., 1999 WL 672937 at *9 (E.D.Pa.1999). See also Hahn v. Richter, 543 Pa. 558, 673 A.2d 888, 891 (1996) (<HOLDING>) It is uncontested that New Jersey law

A: holding that where the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers ie the manufacturers negligence is the only recognized basis of liability
B: holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community
C: holding a manufacturer had no postsale duty to warn of dangers associated with an auger because numerous hodder factors were not present
D: recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known
A.