## Q3 key (Autonomous Forklift)
1. Design defect is triable: the safety engineer's rejected speed-interlock recommendation is a reasonable alternative design supported from inside the company; the 0.7 percent misclassification against 8 percent added stops is a jury balance, not a defense victory. Missed: case value misjudged.
2. Post-sale warning failure is the plaintiff's cleanest theory: three known near misses, a bulletin sent to distributors but not to Delta while holding Delta's service contacts. Missed: the most dangerous claim goes unaddressed.
3. Delta's conduct (disabled supplemental braking, missed calibrations, tolerated phone use) and Luis's phone use are foreseeable, not superseding, under supplied rule 7; they allocate fault, they do not erase liability. Missed: defense overvalues a causation knockout.
4. Luis's comparative share is modest and nowhere near the 51 percent bar. Missed: unrealistic zero-recovery expectations.
5. The post-accident speed limit is inadmissible for defect and likely inadmissible for feasibility, because feasibility is not genuinely disputed given the pre-accident internal recommendation. Missed: trial strategy leans on excluded or double-edged evidence.
6. Sensor-frame deletion after the day-5 preservation letter supports curative measures; intent to deprive is not shown on an automatic seven-day cycle, so an adverse inference is unlikely but the fight is real. Missed: sanctions posture misplayed.
7. Employer immunity: Delta absorbs fault allocation but not contribution beyond workers' compensation; VectorMotion's recovery path is contractual claims against SafePath. Missed: recovery sought from an immune party.
8. Posture: pursue global settlement with a meaningful contribution demand on SafePath; trying the case risks the near-miss and rejected-recommendation record in front of a jury. Missed: reputational and verdict exposure understated.