S.W.2d 877, 878 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1973, no writ). Moreover, to the extent Massey contends that Bren-Tex would also be independently liable for failing, while refurbishing the tractor, to install a ROPS, any such liability would al t. k. 12 . A report prepared by the Hensens’ expert witness was admitted into evidence by Massey and stated that Bren-Tex should have: (1) known of the severe injury potential of tractor rollovers; (2) known that a ROPS would have reduced suc , 18 (Ky.Ct.App.1983) (stating, "We know of no reason to obligate a seller to vigorously promote every optional safety device which might be available.”). 14 . Bren-Tex was not a Massey dealer and there is no evidence of what, if any, knowledge Bren-Tex had about the availability o 6-18 (Mo.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Livengood v. ABS Contractors Supply, 126 Ohio
holding that a restaurant supply employer had no duty to warn a delivery truck driver employee of the danger associated with water on a floor because that is a commonly known hazard and obvious to everyone holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger holding under section 388 of the restatement seoond of torts defendants had no duty to warn injured tractor driver that tractor lacked a rops because this was an open and obvious danger holding that seller of frontend loader had no duty to warn injured worker concerning the dangers of operating the loader without a rops because the dangers were obvious under an objective standard holding supplier of compactor had no duty to warn worker or his employer of the availability andor need for a rops for the compactor because this was an open and obvious danger