73. Frieda is driving her 1999 Newmobile when she is struck from the side by a speeding driver who drives away and is never found. The impact on Frieda’s car is great enough that it causes the car to go through a barrier at the side of the road, where it tumbles over and falls into a seven-foot-deep ravine. The car finally lands on its roof, and Frieda is seriously injured. Medical evidence shows that the only serious injuries to Frieda occurred when the car landed on its roof, the pieces of steel supporting the roof buckled, and the roof therefore collapsed onto Frieda’s head and neck. The evidence also shows that had a “roll bar” been installed in the car to maintain the structural integrity of the passenger compartment in a roll-over accident, Frieda would not have sustained her injuries. There is evidence that other manufacturers of similar cars have installed roll bars for this reason.

Frieda sues Newmobile in strict product liability. Newmobile defends on the grounds that a manufacturer of a defective product only has liability when the product is put to its intended use, and that collisions and roll-overs are not the intended use for cars. Will Newmobile prevail with this defense? _________________