Ellis, an electrical engineer, designed an electronic game known as Zappo. Ellis entered into a licensing agreement with Toyco under which Toyco agreed to manufacture Zappo according to Ellis's specifications and to market it and pay a royalty to Ellis. Carla, whose parents had purchased a Zappo game for her, was injured while playing the game. Carla recovered a judgment against Toyco on the basis of a finding that the Zappo game was defective because of Ellis's improper design. In a claim for indemnity against Ellis, will Toyco prevail?
Yes, because as between Ellis and Toyco, Ellis was responsible for the design of Zappo.  Yes, because Toyco and Ellis were joint tortfeasors.  No, because Toyco, as the manufacturer, was strictly liable to Carla.  No, if Toyco, by a reasonable inspection, could have discovered the defect in the design of Zappo
Question: Ellis, an electrical engineer, designed an electronic game known as Zappo. Ellis entered into a licensing agreement with Toyco under which Toyco agreed to manufacture Zappo according to Ellis's specifications and to market it and pay a royalty to Ellis. Carla, whose parents had purchased a Zappo game for her, was injured while playing the game. Carla recovered a judgment against Toyco on the basis of a finding that the Zappo game was defective because of Ellis's improper design. In a claim for indemnity against Ellis, will Toyco prevail?
A. Yes, because as between Ellis and Toyco, Ellis was responsible for the design of Zappo. 
B. Yes, because Toyco and Ellis were joint tortfeasors. 
C. No, because Toyco, as the manufacturer, was strictly liable to Carla. 
D. No, if Toyco, by a reasonable inspection, could have discovered the defect in the design of Zappo
Answer: