As a result of an explosion while plugging the Wonder "C" Model widget into an electrical socket, Tina was left in a coma for nine years. When she regained consciousness, she wished to bring legal action against the manufacturer, ACME Widget Co., for her injuries. She did not remember much about the events that surrounded the explosion. While doing some research for her case she discovered that there had been an electrical storm on the evening she was using the Wonder "C" when it exploded. Which of the following legal principles would the manufacturer of the widget not be entitled to use?

There was damage that was foreseeable by a reasonable person.

The defendant was the proximate cause (causation) of the damage.

The duty of the defendant was unclear in the legal sense.

The defendant breached the standard of care.

There was a duty not to injure.