Martha is walking from her office building to her car in a torrential downpour with an umbrella manufactured by Umbrellas USA, Inc. She is struck by lightning and files suit, claiming the manufacturer failed to include a warning. A court would likely find that:
a. there is no duty to warn about risks that are obvious or commonly known, such as the risk of lightning occurring during a rainstorm.
b. the plaintiff was partially at fault under the doctrine of comparative negligence.
c. the seller should have provided a warning because of the foreseeable misuse of an umbrella in a rainstorm with lightning.
d. the umbrella should have included a warning label against using an umbrella in a lightning storm.