This week's readings focus on warranties and product liability. In this regard, please carefully read the below hypothetical and answer the question posed at the end. Emma and Timothy Simpson were injured while riding a Salvi mini-trail bike. Timothy and Emma were at the time 12 years old. Timothy was driving and Emma was the passenger when the bike hit a truck. Timothy had run three stop signs and was looking behind him at a car at the time of the accident. Emma was not wearing a helmet, and while Timothy was wearing one, it flew off when the bike hit the truck because it was not fastened. The bike contained a warning label prominently posted in front of the operator. It read: READ OWNER'S MANUAL CAREFULLY. THIS VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED FOR OFF- THE-ROAD USE ONLY. DO NOT OPERATE ON PUBLIC STREETS, ROADS OR HIGHWAYS. The operator's manual contained a similar admonition as well as a statement urging the user to wear a helmet. The parents of Emma and Timothy owned motorcycles and had purchased a minibike for their children. The parents filed suit against Salvi, the bike manufacturing company, claiming that the mini-trail bike was unreasonably dangerous. Salvi maintained that it had provided sufficient warning as to the danger of improper operation. Should Salvi be held strictly liable for the injuries? HINT: Check out the real-world precent of Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and use the court's decision to answer the hypothetical.