With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Because I conclude, however, that FIFRA does not preempt such a claim in these circumstances, I respectfully dissent from this aspect of the majority’s opinion. 1 . The printed material on top of the container begins with the following: TO OPEN: PLACE COIN IN GROOVE-PRY AND LIFT LID OFF 2 . See Majority Opinion at p. 249 (rejecting Hawkins’s ”attempt[] to make the distinction that her claim is based not on the label, but on instructions placed on the lid of the container”). 3 . But see Majority Opinion at p. 252 (acknowledging that "the approved instructions and warnings do not specify how the user is to pry the lid off the container”). 4 . See, e.g., Williams v. Ashland Eng’g Co., 45 F.3d 588, 592 n. 7 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 807, 116 S.Ct. 51, 133 L.Ed.2d 16 (1995) (<HOLDING>). 5 . See also Avirgan v. Hull, 691 F.Supp.

A: recognizing that federal preemption is affirmative defense as to which defendant has burden of proof
B: recognizing laches as an affirmative defense
C: holding that unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense
D: holding burden of proof is on one asserting an affirmative defense
A.