With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". negligence defense. This argument also fails. We have no occasion to probe legislative history when the statutory language is clear and unambiguous. See State v. Matthews, 237 Neb. 300, 465 N.W.2d 763, 764 (1991) (when words of statute are “plain, direct and unambiguous, no interpretation is necessary or will be indulged to ascertain their meaning”); Black v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 218 Neb. 572, 358 N.W.2d 181, 184 (1984) (same). We thus conclude that the district court did not plainly err in giving the contributory negligence instruction. It applied the plain words of a Nebraska statute making contributory negligence applicable in a strict liability case; it then modified the instruction to conform with Rahmig. See Nebraska Jury Instructions § 11.20 at 635-37 (2d ed. 1989) (<HOLDING>). Tillwick makes other arguments challenging

A: recognizing strict product liability actions
B: recognizing that a violation of the mbta is a strict liability offense
C: recognizing application of section 2521185 in strict liability cases
D: holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute
C.