Bob, a builder, is building a building. When he returns to the worksite after lunch, he discovers that his trusty hammer, Rusty, is nowhere to be found. Not wanting to put the project behind schedule, he grabs the closest substitute he can find$--$his loaded pistol$--$and begins hammering away. The repeated impacts somehow cause the gun to fire, resulting in severe injuries.

Bob sues the gun manufacturer, claiming that the gun was defective. Is his lawsuit likely to be successful?

No$,$ because the harm did not result from a reasonably foreseeable use.

Yes, because guns are inherently dangerous.

Yes, unless the gun came with a warning not to use it as a hammer when loaded.

No$,$ unless he can establish a reasonable alternative design.

Yes, if he purchased the gun directly from the manufacturer.