Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
more so when, as here, the manufacturer affirmatively and successfully limits the market of its product to professionals. In such a case, the manufacturer should not be burdened with the often difficult task of providing instructions on how to properly perform the basic operation. Antcliff v. State Employees Credit Union, 414 Mich. 624, 327 N.W.2d 814, 821 (1982). See also, Parker v. Schmiede Machine and Tool Corp., 445 Fed.Appx. 231, 234 (11th Cir.2011) (explaining that under Georgia law, the sophisticated user or learned intermediary doctrine relieves a manufacturer of liability for failure to warn where members of the profession to whom the product is sold are generally aware of hazards known to the trade); Carmical v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 117 F.3d 490, 495 (11th Cir.1997) ; Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. v. Calgon
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that helicopter manufacturer had no duty under georgia law to warn pilot that loss of lubrication to gearshaft could result in engine failure where pilot knew that maintenance of an oil lubricated engine required lubrication to engine
B. holding in a negligence action that the air traffic controllers failure to warn of an impending danger cannot be the proximate cause of an injury after the pilot himself discovered its presence appreciated the danger and decided to fly ahead into it
C. holding all that is required to impose a duty to warn is that the defendant knew or should have known of a specific threat made to harm a specific person
D. holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment
E. holding that oil suppliers had no duty to warn of danger to commercial customer whose negligence or oversight resulted in explosion that injured its employee
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.