[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie Decided to Purchase a Large Squirt

[Squirt Gun Mishap] Marie decided to purchase a large squirt gun for her son, Alex, to use while playing in the pool. The squirt gun was of a very elaborate variety and had a number of different attachments for different sprays of water. The squirt gun came with instructions for assembly and use, and provided warnings against various types of misuse. The pamphlet that came with the squirt gun advised that the squirt gun should be used only under adult supervision, that it must not be used by children under 11 years old, and that nothing should be put into the squirt gun except water. Alex had a party for his tenth birthday at the pool. A number of children came. A guest, Sophie, age 10, decided to load pebbles along with water into the gun. She began shooting the gun and hit Rachel, another guest, in the eye, requiring treatment at an emergency room. Rachel required some minor surgery, but sustained no permanent injury. Rachel's parents stated that they looked at the squirt gun when they initially arrived at the party, but did not notice any warnings affixed directly to the product. Rachel's parents want to sue someone for something, but they do not particularly want to sue Marie, their friend and hostess of the party.
-Which statement is true regarding a lawsuit brought by Rachel's parents against the manufacturer of the squirt gun for strict liability?

A) Because neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller, a lawsuit based on strict liability in tort is barred.
B) Privity of contract is not necessary in order to sue based on strict liability, so the fact that neither Rachel nor her parents were in privity of contract with the seller would not prevent a strict liability-based action.
C) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel's parents would be unable to prevail in a strict liability action because Rachel did not sustain permanent physical injury.
D) Although privity of contract is not an issue, Rachel's parents would be unable to prevail in an action against the manufacturer for strict liability because they did not read the instruction booklet.
E) Rachel's parents would be prohibited from suing the manufacturer because of the federal law prohibiting lawsuits for failure to warn in cases involving children.