With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to government contract); Lorenzen v. Bi-State Ford, No. L-93-337, 1994 WL 411511, at *4 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 5, 1994) (noting that defendant only “attached the winch assembly to the truck and made some behind the cab modifications” consistent with employer’s specifications and thus was not liable for worker’s injures because it was not a manufacturer). Finally, many of the cases cited by Symmetry involved injured employees’ claims against defendants who manufactured allegedly unsafe machinery to the specifications of the employer. See Garrison v. Rohm & Haas Co., 492 F.2d 346 (6th Cir. 1974) (while using it for unintended purpose, employee injured by dolly manufactured by defendant to specifications of employer); Moon v. Winger Boss Co., 205 Neb. 292, 299, 287 N.W.2d 430, 434 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Bloemer v. Art Welding Co., 884 S.W.2d 55, 67

A: holding that manufacturer is not liable for injuries to employee by product manufactured to employers plans and specifications provided the defect is not so obviously patently or glaringly dangerous that a manufacturer exercising ordinary care under the circumstances then existing would not follow them
B: holding that manufacturers of inherently dangerous products do not enjoy blanket protection from liability because others in chain of distribution reformulate or repackage it and stating that if a manufacturer knows or should know that downstream distributors are not giving adequate warnings to the end user of a product then the bulk manufacturer may be held liable for failing to take appropriate action
C: holding that under new york law a manufacturer is not obligated to design a product that is impossible to abuse
D: holding manufacturer liable for defective product provided that plaintiff could not by exercise of reasonable care have discovered the defecl and perceived its danger or otherwise averted his injury
A.