third person through whom the chattel is supplied all the information necessary to its safe use” is not always sufficient to relieve the supplier from liability; the issue is whether this method “gives a reasonable assurance that the information will reach those whose safety depends on their having it.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388, comment n; Adams v. Union Carbide Corp., 737 F.2d 1453, 1465 (6th Cir.1984) (“[T]he [supplier’s] duty to warn may be discharged by providing information of the dangerous propensities of the product to a third person ... upon whom it can reasonably rely to communicate the information to the ultimate users of the product”); Weekes v. Michigan Chrome & Chemical Co., 352 F.2d 603, 607 (6th Cir.1965) (“[Defendant was required to exercise reasonab r.1994) (<HOLDING>). The finder of fact must consider a variety of
holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury holding that manufacturers of inherently dangerous products do not enjoy blanket protection from liability because others in chain of distribution reformulate or repackage it and stating that if a manufacturer knows or should know that downstream distributors are not giving adequate warnings to the end user of a product then the bulk manufacturer may be held liable for failing to take appropriate action holding that where the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at issue the failure of the manufacturer to exercise reasonable care to warn of dangers ie the manufacturers negligence is the only recognized basis of liability recognizing that a manufacturer may be held strictly liable for subsequent changes to an otherwise safe product where such alterations are reasonably foreseeable holding that manufacturer is not liable for injuries to employee by product manufactured to employers plans and specifications provided the defect is not so obviously patently or glaringly dangerous that a manufacturer exercising ordinary care under the circumstances then existing would not follow them