Question A consumer bought a kitchen blender from the manufacturer. Soon after the purchase, the consumer was using the blender in an appropriate way when the blender jar shattered, throwing a piece of glass into the consumer's eye. The consumer brought an action against the manufacturer based solely on strict products liability. The consumer's expert testified that the blender was defectively designed. However, because the blender jar had been destroyed in the accident, the expert could not determine whether the accident had been caused by the design defect or a manufacturing defect. The manufacturer's expert testified that the blender was not defective. If, at the conclusion of the evidence, both parties move for directed verdicts, how should the trial judge rule? A Direct a verdict for the manufacturer, because the consumer's expert was unable to specify the nature of the defect. B Direct a verdict for the manufacturer, because the consumer's action was brought solely on a strict liability theory. C Direct a verdict for the consumer, because the blender was new when the jar shattered, and thus was undeniably defective. Deny both motions and send the case to the jury, because a jury reasonably could conclude that the harm was caused by a defect present in the product when it was sold