please answer all questions. they are related to the same thing. thank you.

Questions 22 through 25 are based on the following: Jessar Industries Company (the company") made coffee makers for use in restaurants and homes. The company was always seeking ways to make its coffee makers more efficient. One of the company's researchers invented a thermostat which would cause a coffee maker to make a 10-cup pot of coffee in 30 seconds instead of the usual five minutes or so. Extensive in-house testing showed that, about once every 100 pots of coffee, the thermostat would malfunction and the resulting coffee would be either room temperature or as hot as 180F (if liquid if 180F, it will cause a third-degree burn within three seconds of coming into contact with skin). In most tests, the "bad 100th pot would be room temperature. Therefore, the chances of the "bad 100th pot being as hot as 180F was about two out of every 1,000 pots of coffee. The company's committee was fully advised of this problem with the new thermostat but felt that the marketability of making the faster pot of coffee on market was too good to pass up. Also, they felt that a warning about the thermostat problem would discourage new customers so they decided leave its current warning - "Careful! Coffee can always be hot so drink it only after checking the temperature!" - on their coffee makers' packaging. Finally, the committee, in consultant with corporate counsel, concluded that the likelihood of any lawsuits was small and determined that any legal issues could be resolved by way of out-of-court settlements. As of the first of 2013, all coffee makers made by the company included the new thermostat with the same warning on the packaging. On January 27, 2013, Lanuza made coffee with his new coffee maker from the company that had been manufactured after the first of 2013. It was his first pot of coffee and he wanted to see how fast the coffee maker would work. In fact, it made a 10-cup pot of coffee in 28.7 seconds (Lanuza had a stopwatch on his phone) and Lanuza was so excited that he quickly poured himself a cup of coffee and started to drink it. As shown by later expert analysis, the coffee was about 180F when he drank it which resulted in third-degree burns to his lips, chin, tongue and mouth. Lanuza sued the company for damages under negligence and products liability causes of action. (Questions 22 and 23 are on this page; questions 24 and 25 are on the next page.) 22. Which of the following is Lanuza's best argument in support of his negligence cause of action? A. Lanuza was seriously injured by the company's coffee. B. Lanuza could not have known that the coffee was hot. C. The company had a duty of care to make a safe product. D. The company breached its duty of care to make a safe product. 23. Which of the following is the company's best argument against Lanuza's negligence cause of action? A. Comparative negligence. B. Unintended use. C. Third party fault. D. Nominal damages. 24. Which of the following is Lanuza's best argument in support of his products liability cause of action? A. Function defect. B. Warning defect. C. Design defect. D. Manufacturing defect. 25. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Lanuza won at trial on his products liability cause of action. Could he be awarded punitive damages? A. Yes, because the company intentionally put a dangerous product on the market. B. Yes, because Lanuza was seriously injured by the company's product C. No, because Lanuza may have been negligent himself in this situation. D. No, because punitive damages are never available in products liability cases