$6\mathrm{.}5$ Design Defect Intex Recreation designed and sold the Sno$-$Tube II$.$ This snow tube is ridden by a user down snow$-$covered hills and can reach a speed of $30$ miles per hour. The snow tube has no steering device, and therefore a rider may end up spinning and going down a hill backwards. Dan Falkner bought a Sno$-$Tube II and went sledding with it$.$ During Falkner$$s second run down the hill the tube rotated backward. A group of parents, including Tom Higgins, stood near the bottom of the hill. When Higgins saw $7-$year$-$old Kyle Potter in the path of Falkner$$s speeding snow tube he ran and grabbed Potter to save him from harm, but while doing so the snow tube hit Higgins and threw him into the air. Higgins landed on his forehead, which snapped his head back, severed his spinal cord, and left him quadriplegic. Higgins sued Intex for strict liability based on the alleged design defect of the Sno$-$Tube. Evidence was introduced at trial that showed that the Sno$-$Tube had no guiding mechanism or steering device to keep it from rotating while going downhill and that Intex could have put ridges on the bottom of the snow tube, which would have prevented it from rotating. Was the Sno$-$Tube II defectively designed?