Wilma locked herself in the trunk of a 1973 sedan in an attempt to learn a magic trick. After some time, she decided to get out of the trunk, but was unable to do so. She was released nine days later. She subsequently sued the manufacturer of the sedan for the psychological and physical injuries she sustained because the trunk did not have an internal release or opening mechanism that would have allowed her to escape. She alleged that the manufacturer was negligent in its design of the car because it lacked such a mechanism, and negligent because it failed to warn users that the trunk did not have such a mechanism. In this scenario, was the manufacturer of the sedan negligent for failing to warn, or failing to include a release mechanism in its design of the car?

yes the manufacturer was negligent

Explanation:

The  manufacturer was  Negligent because the Trunk of a 1973 sedan is designed to be released ( open and close ) from outside the trunk and not from inside of the trunk and he was suppose to include an information indicating how the trunk functions

Although Wilma locking herself in the trunk of the car was not the purpose for which the car was designed for, hence she used the car wrongly but she can sue the manufacturer for the Negligence because the manufacturer did not provide information about the danger of using the car for a purpose that it was not built for like trying to open the trunk from inside

sir frederic attributed inaccuracies to schemas. memory reconstruction is one part actual events and one part personal schema, which can result in inaccuracies when memories are reconstructed.