With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". aspect of a design’s utility is its safety, and claims Guy did not prove a forklift with a door is, on the whole, safer than one without. Along this line, Crown contends that, without the aid of expert testimony, a jury cannot determine whether the addition of a door would pass the MPLA feasible-design-alternative analysis. Based upon our de novo review, Guy did not present the requisite evidence for a reasonable jury to find that a door is a MPLA feasible design alternative. In this regard, however, we note that the MPLA’s plain language does not state expert testimony is required per se to prove a design defect. See Miss Code Ann. §§ ll-l-63(a), (b), (f). See also Malbrough v. Crown Equip. Corp., No. 04-30118, 2004 WL 2668404, at *2, slip op. 630, 392 F.3d 135 (5th Cir. 23 Nov. 2004) (<HOLDING>). In any event, we need not reach the question

A: holding on interlocutory appeal that expert testimony not always required by the terms of the louisiana product liability act to prove prima facie design defect
B: holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
C: holding plaintiff in a defective design case failed to establish a prima facie case because plaintiffs expert identified an alternative design that was not feasible at the time of manufacture and thus failed to prove that defendants design was not state of the art
D: holding combination of prima facie case and evidence of pretext is neither always sufficient nor always insufficient
A.