1. Rhonda had a heart condition, Bradychardia, in which her heart rate was often too low, preventing her heart from pumping enough oxygen-rich blood to her organs. At her cardiologists advice, she purchased a new Franklin brand smartwatch at a local retailer so she could monitor her heart rate throughout the day. She configured the watch to provide her with hourly notifications regarding her heart rate, and also to alert her whenever her heartrate fell below 50 beats per minute. When her heart rate fell below 50 beats per minute, taking medication quickly would alleviate the problem, which is why the notification from her watch was so important.

Recently, Rhonda decided to take an afternoon nap because she did not sleep well the previous night. While asleep, her heart rate unexpectedly fell to 45 beats per minute, but her Franklin smartwatch did not send an alert to wake her up. When Rhondas husband got home from work, he found Rhonda on the couch, extremely short of breath, about what she had done that day, and complaining of pain in her chest.

He immediately drove Rhonda to the emergency room, where doctors determined that she had suffered a mild heart attack. Fortunately, Rhonda was only hospitalized for a few days, but her stay was costly. Her doctors told her that it will be several months before they can determine whether the heart attack caused any last damage.

Rhonda brings an action based on strict liability against Franklin to recover damages. Will Rhonda be able to prove all the elements of strict liability? Why or why not?