(dissenting). I agree that, as a sophisticated user, National Seating Company (nsc), had the duty to comply with workplace safety laws and have its employees read and follow all instructions *549that defendants supplied about the safe use of Lockweld 110. Therefore, if the information supplied had been adequate to alert someone to the danger posed by sopping up a spill with foam rubber, or if defendants had instructed nsc about a safe method of sopping up spills that would have precluded the use of foam rubber, defendants would not be liable for the damage caused by the fire.
However, under "Precautions for Safe Handling and Use,” the material safety data sheet said only:
Spills should be cleaned up immediately. Soak up spill with absorbent material or wipe up with rags. Absorbent material or rags should be put into closed container.
Foam rubber is an "absorbent material.” Thus, the fire at nsc started while nsc’s employee was acting in accordance with defendants’ instructions for safe handling.
The only warning defendants supplied nsc to alert it to the danger that soaking up spills with foam rubber could cause a fire was the label warning to keep the solvent away from sparks. I would hold the adequacy of the warnings defendants supplied to be a question for the trier of fact to decide.1
I dissent.
I do not find nsc’s continued use of the product damning. Defendants have presented no evidence showing that nsc continues to use foam rubber to sop up spills.