With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". motion, the record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party. Demmler v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 448 Pa. Super. 425, 430, 671 A.2d 1151, 1153 (1996). (citations omitted) Under section 402A, as adopted by Pennsylvania, strict liability protects a “user or consumer” of defective products. Webb v. Zern, 422 Pa. 424, 427, 220 A.2d 853, 854 (1966) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A(1)). As defined in the Restatement, plaintiff here was neither a user nor a consumer of Sonothane. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §402A cmt. 1. However, it appears that as in many jurisdictions, the courts in Pennsylvania have extended the protections afforded under section 402A to bystanders. See Pegg v. General Motors Corp., 258 Pa. Super. 59, 69, 391 A.2d 1074, 1079 (1978) (<HOLDING>). See also, Herman v. Welland Chemical Company,

A: holding in a review of probation revocation that a male driver did not have dominion and control over marijuana in a multicolored makeup pouch concealed in the back seat of the car near where the female passenger in question was sitting
B: holding the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the defendant a front seat passenger of a vehicle occupied by three individuals was in constructive possession of marijuana found in white bag directly under the defendants seat
C: holding that a passenger in a vehicle who was injured when a pool chemical placed in back seat by driver combusted stated a cause of action in strict liability against manufacturer
D: holding evidence was insufficient to establish preponderance of evidence of appellants ability to control drugs where drugs found in compartment on back of passenger seat and appellant was sole backseat passenger
C.