When Savannah Boles became a customer of Executive Tans, she signed a contract. One clause stated that signers used the company's tanning booths at their own risk. It also released the manufacturer and others from liability for any injuries. Later, Boles's fingers were partially amputated when they came into contact with a tanning booth's fan. Boles sued the manufacturer, claiming strict product liability. The Colorado Supreme Court held that assumption of risk was not applicable because strict product liability is by public-policy considerations. The theory focuses on the nature of the product rather than the conduct of either the manufacturer or the person injured.

Under what circumstances can a tanning salon customer sue for injuries even though she or he signed a release?