With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.Supp. 381, 386 (M.D.Pa.1992) (following a Pennsylvania decision holding that “there is no cause of action for a continuing duty to warn purchasers of new developments which may make the product more safe.”); Butler v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Co., No. 89-0064-H, 1991 WL 441735, at *6, 1991 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 16701, at *19-20 (W.D.Va. Oct. 18, 1991) (court rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant had a duty to retrofit, stating “[pjlaintiff cites no authority for this position”); Moorehead v. Clark Equip. Co., No. 86 C 1442, 1987 WL 26158, at *2, 1987 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11096, at *5 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 2, 1987) (rejecting under Illinois law “the continuing duty of a manufacturer to notify prior purchasers of new safety devices”); Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Ford, 406 So.2d 854, 857 (Ala.1981) (<HOLDING>); Jackson v. New Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co., 166

A: holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control
B: holding that the plaintiff must show that there was a lack of probable cause for the criminal prosecution
C: holding that plaintiff seeking to impose liability for death resulting from lack of rops on tractor must show that the tractor was defective when sold
D: holding that if a trial court has rejected death as a possible sentence double jeopardy bars the state from seeking the death penalty at resentencing even where rejection of the death sentence was based on a legal error
C.