In January 1999, John Clank of Clarkstown, Mississippi, bought a paintball gun. Clank practiced with the gun and knew how to screw in the CO cartridge, pump the gun, and use its safety and trigger. He hunted and had taken a course in hunter safety education. He knew that protective eyewear was available for purchase, but he chose not to buy it. Clank also understood that it was “common sense” not to shoot anyone in the face. Chris Pico, another Clarkstown resident, owned a paintball gun made by Silver Eagle, Inc. Pico was similarly familiar with the gun’s use and its risks. At that time and place, Clank, Pico, and their friends played a game that involved shooting paintballs at cars whose occupants also had the guns. One night, while Clank and Pico were cruising with their guns, Pico shot at Clank’s car but hit Clank in the eye. Clank filed a suit in a Mississippi state court against Silver Eagle to recover for the injury, alleging in part that its gun was defectively designed. During the trial, Pico testified that his gun “never malfunctioned.” In whose favor should the court rule? Why?