With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 737 F.Supp. 205, 207 (S.D.N.Y.1990); United States Gold Corp. v. Federal Express Corp., 719 F.Supp. 1217, 1224-25 (S.D.N.Y.1989). The question remains as to whether federal common law can also be applied to a shipment from an adjacent foreign country to the United States by ground. As the preceding discussion reveals, most forms of interstate transportation are governed by federal law that has entirely preempted state regulation of common earners. See Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U.S. 491, 505, 33 S.Ct. 148, 57 L.Ed. 314 (1913). Federal common law has also been held to cover contracts for air carriage that fall within the gap left between the Warsaw Convention and interstate carriage. See Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217, 229, 116 S.Ct. 629, 133 L.Ed.2d 596 (1996) (<HOLDING>); see also Hitachi Data Sys. Corp. v. Nippon

A: holding that federal common law is the law that would govern in the absence of the warsaw convention
B: holding that a federal court may resort to state law analogies for the development of a federal common law of privileges in instances where the federal rule is unsettled
C: holding that article 3 of the united nations convention on the rights of the child has attained the status of customary international law and is therefore incorporated in federal law
D: holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law
A.