With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.Supp. 842 (E.D.Pa.1974): To be sure, there are reasons for requiring the defendant to carry the burden of coming forward and alleging a substantial change. In many cases, the alleged substantial change is perceived only by the defendant who should, therefore, . 219, 491 N.E.2d 33, 36 (1986) (stating that “there is no duty upon plaintiffs in making a prima facie product liability case to eliminate all possible causes of the incident other than the one they alleged” (citation omitted)); Kuhnke v. Textron, Inc., 140 Ariz. 587, 684 P.2d 159, 162 (1984) (ruling that “once a defendant comes forward with some evidence of substantial change, the burden is on the plaintiff to show no substantial change” (citing Southmre)); Hiller v. Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A, 671 P.2d 369, 372 (Alaska 1983) (<HOLDING>); cf. Dutsch v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc., 845 P.2d

A: holding that the plaintiff must first establish that the product left the sellers hands in a defective condition after which the seller may introduce evidence that its product was substantially altered after leaving its possession which evidence may rebut or overcome the plaintiffs showing that his injuries were a result of the products defect
B: holding there is no authority that provides that the mere sale of a consumer electronics product in california can create a duty to disclose any defect that may occur during the useful life of the product
C: 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
D: holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury
A.