1. Crowndown is a pesticide which has an active ingredient known as hysosate. In 2015, Mandrina Johnson sued Consanto, alleging that using Crowndown caused her non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. She had used Crowndown for 20 years. A jury awarded Johnson a verdict of $4 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages. At the trial, two of Johnson's experts testified that there was a connection between hysosate and cancer and another expert testified that hysosate and not some other factor caused Johnson's cancer. Consanto argued that the carcinogenic risk of hysosate was not known until the last years of Johnson's exposure. Consento supported its argument with the fact that under California law, it was only since 2012 that manufacturers of hysosate were required to provide a Proposition 65 warning that hysosate was a chemical known to the state to cause cancer. The basis of the state's requirement of a warning was that since 2010, Consanto had been sued by thousands of people alleging that hysosate caused cancer and that there was some evidence supporting those allegations. Consanto argued that it need not provide any warnings prior to that time. Based on this information, a. List what theories of product liability were likely to have been the basis for Johnson's successful lawsuit and briefly explain why you selected those theories. b. Select one of those theories, explain the components of that theory and analyze how you believe the elements were present. In your answer, identify the impact of Consanto's defense.