From the picture below, write three wrong things regarding Legal Analysis I provided.

Legal Analysis: As previously mentioned in the introduction, this legal analysis is being conducted to determine whether your company is liable for strict product liability and is Mrs. Nelson can recover from punitive damages. Strict product liability can be defined as a defect product that was the cause of an unreasonably dangerous condition that was the cause of the plaintiff's physical harm ( 402A). Strict product liability also has three forms; manufacturing defect, marketing defect, and design defect in which the plaintiff only needs to prove one. ( 402A). Punitive damages may be instituted on your company should you be found liable for egregious behavior regarding a product. (Lichtamer v American Corp). Mrs. Nelson will most likely argue for the case of a manufacturing defect regarding the ovenware. The defendant in this case can argue that your company is liable because your company knew that the product was in a defective state and that this was the cause of the product causing serious physical harm to the defendant by blowing up. Mrs. Nelson can argue that the design of the product is dangerous to her health and safety since it will explode despite being designed to be able to withstand the temperature change. Mrs. Nelson can also argue that it can qualify as egregious behavior, due to the willingness to distribute the product, despite the manufacturer knowing that the product could be a serious risk to the safety of the consumer, and that the products safety report was altered to not mention the chance of an explosion happening. Your company can argue that you are not liable for strict product liability as the product itself was not "unreasonably dangerous". Your company can argue that the products probability of a defect was lower than one percent, meaning the odds of an injury happening were too slim to hold the product back form millions of consumers. By having such a low chance of an incident occurring, it can be understood that the product itself cannot be "unreasonably dangerous. Your company can argue that punitive damages could not be awarded, as your actions did not constitute "egregious behavior", due to such a low probability of the defect occurring, and by offering replacements to any product that was reported with the defect. We conclude that Mrs. Nielson will be able to recover for strict product liability as your products design is defective. She will also be able to recover punitive damages due to the suppressed information regarding the safety of the product.

Legal Analyses 1. Define (using citation): for example, negligence can be defined as according to . DON'T WRITE OUT EVERYTHING, just cite it. Don't cite a case within a case. Just reference the case name. 2. Analyze (using the relevant facts from the case, what can the plaintiff AND defendant argue) 3. Conclude . Discuss the result of the analysis (liability under each section) The above SHOULD ALL APPLY TO EACH ELEMENT of an applicable civil or criminal code