Please note that I am more interested in your analysis than I am your conclusion. Specifically, I am looking for you to identify the issue, identify and discuss the rule of law and then applying the facts of the case to the rule of law to reach a conclusion. More weight will be given your argument supporting your conclusion than to the conclusion itself.

GardenTrak makes leaf blowers. GardenTrak is known for manufacturing reliable products using the best available materials. In the 1980s, GardenTrak manufactured the Blow Hard leaf blower, using the most resilient plastics available at the time. The average Blow Hard would operate for approximately 1,000 hours before the electric motor would fail from use. In 1987, Bill purchased a Blow Hard leaf blower manufactured by Garden Trak. Bill used the leaf blower off and on for 30 years. By 2017, it is estimated that Bill used the Blow Hard for more than 2,000 hours. In October of 2017, Bill was using the Blow Hard in his yard when the plastic fan broke apart sending pieces flying out of the leaf blower, and injuring Bills neighbor, Henry. There were no relevant warnings in the users manual of the Blow Hard. GardenTrak currently manufactures the Blow Hard III, using plastics that are more resilient than those available in 1987. Henry is suing GardenTrak for his injuries. What are the arguments that each party should make?