1.Conclusion (5 points):Begins response with a concise, clear, and reasonable assertion thatdirectly addresses andincorporates the issue that the problem presents.(Usually, onesentence should suffice.)

2. Rule (Rule of Law) (30 points):Explains the rule(s) of law applicable to the issue(s) arising from the facts.Teaches the reader the legal rules that are required to address the problem. In other words, the response explains the relevant law (legal rule) and breaks it down into the proper elements and/or factors as necessary.

3.Analysis (30 points):Applies the rule to the facts:Articulates the supporting reasoning for the conclusion by applying/linking the rule (and each element and/or factor in the rule) to the relevant facts. Uses relevant and proper legal terminology drawn from the assigned learning materials. Highly distinctive responses may further support reasoning through appropriate comparisons to analogous issues in cases (precedent) that may have beenexamined in the assigned learning materials.

On January 1, Edward Schmidt received a new myPhone11, manufactured by Peach Inc., which he ordered directly from Peach's website. When he left for work onJanuary 3, 2020, his phone was still in the same condition that it was when it left the factory, and he had not yet downloaded any third-party appsyet. Schmidt was driving east on Interstate 94 near Madison, Wisconsin when he realized that he would be late for work due to traffic congestion.Schmidt decided to tell his boss about being late, so heopened thephone's messaging appto text his boss. While he was sending the message, he drifted and hit the car in the lane next to him. The other vehicle crashed into a steel guardrail, which caused a three-foot portion of the rail to break off and fly through the windshield of a another car traveling west on the highway. The westbound car was occupied by Clare, Sean, Quinn, and Riley Morrison, all of whom sustainedsevere injuries.Riley, six years old, subsequently died at the hospital.

ThemyPhone11 did not displaya warning about the dangers of operating a vehicle while using thedevice when opening the messagingapp.For several years, there has been publicly available data aboutthe dangers of using mobile devices while driving.Also, prior to 2020, a few researchersindicated that mobile device users tend to develop aneurobiologicalcompulsion to engage intextingbehavior (both sending messages and checking recently received messages).

Ten yearsbeforemyPhone 11 was released, Peach obtained a patent for a "lock-out" mechanism. The patent's description states, "The lock-out mechanism disables the ability of a handheld computing device to perform certain functions, such as texting, while one is driving."However, Peach has never installed the lock-out mechanism into its devices.

During some preliminary investigation, the Morrisons learned that Schmidt was driving without liability insurance and was unemployed. He had only $200 dollars in the bank and about $40,000 in credit card debt. Even if the Morrisons sued Schmidt and obtained a judgment against him, it is unlikely that they would ever be able to collect the money. So, the Morrisons proceeded to sue Peach for negligence and strict product liability.

The Morrisons'suit against Peach alleges that Peach should be liable for negligence based on (I) the lack of a warning about texting-and-driving while the messaging appopens,and (II) strict product liability for not installing the lock-out software on the myPhone 11.

Discuss whether Peach should be liable for the Morrisons' damages due to the negligence and strict product liability allegations described above.