A product is "unreasonably dangerous" when it is dangerous beyond expectations of the ordinary consumer. Whose expectations apply here? Why? A product is also "unreasonable dangerous" when its maker fails to use an alternative design that was economically feasible and less dangerous. Scripto contended that because its product was "simple" and the danger was "obvious," it should not be liable under this test. Do you agree or disagree? Why? Calles presented evidence as to the likelihood and seriousness of injury from lighters that do not have child-safety devices. Scripto argued that the lighter is a useful, inexpensive, alternative source of fire and safer than a match. Calles admitted that she was aware of the dangers presented by lighrers in the hands of children. Scripto admitted that i had been a defendant in at least twenty-five suits for injuries that occurred under similar circumstances. With these factors in mind, how should the court rule? Why?