On the recordMay 9, 1995
Yes. The Friar case involved a forklift and the Colson case involved the use of a lawnmower. In both of those cases the courts held there was no duty to warn where the dangers are of common knowledge. This basic principle is part of case law and it is also set forth in the Restatement of Torts, at section 402A, which I would like to include in the Record. The relevant part provides that defendants are not required to warn with respect to products, or ingredients in them, which are only dangerous, or potentially so, when consumed in excessive quantity, or over a long period of time, when the danger, or potentiality of danger, is generally known and recognized. Again the dangers of alcoholic beverages, are an example, as are also those foods containing such substances as saturated fats, which may over a period of time have a deleterious effect upon the human heart. I thank my colleague for responding to my inquiries.
Source
govinfo.gov
