im mostly focus on getting the graph done. thank you

Mowit Lawn Care, Inc. operates a landscaping and lawn care business in the Oklahoma City metro area. Mowit's business includes industrial and residential landscaping and lawn maintenance. Mowit has over 100 employees. To carry out its business, Mowit hired several employees including 19-year old Paul Smith to work as a lawn technician. The position of lawn technician includes mowing, edging, trimming hedges, and other general clean-up chores. This position also included operating certain mechanical items such as tractors, lawnmowers, both self-propelled and manual, lawn edgers, weed-eaters, and wood chippers. On or about May 7 th, Smith was working on a residential contract for Mowit, which involved cleaning up a yard that had been riddled by the May 3rd tornadoes in the Oklahoma City area. In this capacity, he was assigned to complete a job with his team of removing downed limbs and other natural debris. At this time, Smith had been employed by Mowit for approximately 9 months. In furtherance of his job, Smith was operating a high-powered wood chipper manufactured by Chip-it, Inc. At some point, Smith was gathering tree branches and limbs to be mulched. After the branches and limbs were gathered, Smith placed a tree branch into the chipper that was apparently too large to be readily consumed. To assist in the movement of the branch through the chipper, Smith placed his foot on the end of the branch to push the branch through the chipper's hopper. As the branch began to move through the chipper's grinding mechanism, Smith's leg followed. Smith's leg was consumed by the chipper up to the knee. As a result of this accident, Smith lost his leg up to just above his knee. Chip-it's wood chipper design included multiple warning signs which separately included the following language: These warnings were all in big bold letters and placed in conspicuous areas on the chipper. Smith had been sulficiently trained on the chipper by his employer, however, Smith had been observed by his supervisor on occasion using his foot to push items through the chipper. Following each incident, Smith had been warned by his supervisor to not to use his foot with the chipper in this manner. 1. Can Smith recover for his losses? 2. Under what tort theory (which tort is this)? Explain why or why not for each. 3. What damages and from whom can Smith recover in this case? For each party explain why or why not. 4. Please also fill out the following chart