Final answer:
Lou will attempt to establish a Design Defect in suing Dudley Armaments, as the safety feature on the handgun failed due to the impact when it was dropped, suggesting a flaw in the product's design. Option C.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the scenario where Lou sues Dudley Armaments in strict product liability due to a gunshot wound from a dropped handgun, Lou will attempt to establish a C. Design Defect. Strict product liability requires that a product meet the ordinary expectations of the consumer and be free of defects that could render it unreasonably dangerous.
Since the safety mechanism on the handgun failed when the gun was dropped, causing an unintended discharge and subsequent injury, this indicates that there might be an inherent flaw in the design of the product. Lou's case would likely argue that the handgun's design should have included a safety mechanism capable of withstanding a sharp impact without failing.
A Manufacturing Defect would imply that the specific handgun was uniquely flawed during production, which does not seem to be the case here. A Marketing Defect would relate to how the gun was advertised or instructions provided, and Failure to Inspect would involve a lack of quality control, neither of which directly apply to a fundamental issue with the overall design of the product.
Hence, the right answer is option C.