Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
negligent failure-to-warn cause of action. See Conner v. Alfa Laval, Inc., 842 F.Supp.2d 791, 796-97 (E.D.Pa.2012) (Robreno, J.) ("Products-liability theories, including strict products liability, are well within maritime law” and include "three distinct theories of liability: manufacturing defects, design defects, and defects based on inadequate warnings”) (citing East River Steamship Corp., 476 U.S. at 865, 106 S.Ct. 2295; Ocean Barge Transport Co. v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 726 F.2d 121, 123 (3d Cir.1984); Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prods. Liab. § 2 (1998) (previously Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A (esp. comments h and j))); Lindstrom v. A-C Prod. Liab. Trust, 424 F.3d 488, 492 (6th Cir.2005). 13 . See, e.g., Russo v. Abex Corp., 670 F.Supp. 206, 207 (E.D.Mich.1987) ; Menna v. JohnsManville Corp., 585 F.Supp.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that section 4149 did not apply to the plaintiffs state law claims of breach of duty to protect foster care children from harm and of negligent supervision negligent entrustment and negligent failure to warn
B. holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims
C. holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment
D. holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim
E. holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.