Select the best answer choice.

Regarding the assigned case, Ferlito v$.$ Johnson & Johnson, $771$ F$.$ Supp. $196($U$.$S$.$

District Ct$.,$ Eastern District of Michigan $1991)--$

Why did Johnson & Johnson $($the defendant$)$ not have a duty to warn, according to this case?

Because it was not foreseeable that the plaintiffs would use the product the way they did.

All of these answer choices.

Because the plaintiffs knew that cotton burns when it is exposed to a flame.

Because there was no testimony that the plaintiffs would have acted differently if there was a flammability warning.