Goodyear undertook a duty to warn of K-rim dangers. Under these circumstances, it seems to us that Goodyear had a continuing duty to instruct and to warn, so that users of used K-rims would be apprised of safety hazards which, at an earlier time, were not fully appreciated. Id. (citation omitted). Relying on Hodder, a few Minnesota courts and federal courts applying Minnesota law have recognized or discussed post-sale duties to warn. See, e.g., T.H.S. Northstar Assocs. v. W.R. Grace & Co., 66 F.3d 173, 177 (8th Cir.1995) (affirming district court’s decision to allow a jury to determine whether asbestos manufacturer breached its post-sale duty to warn of dangers relating to its asbestos products); Ramstad v. Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., 836 F.Supp. 1511, 1517 (D.Minn.1993) (<HOLDING>); Kociemba v. G.D. Searle & Co., 707 F.Supp.
recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known holding that manufacturer had no duty to warn its purchasers retailer and transporter of gas of dangers where those purchasers had operated a gas business for years were familiar with the trade journals and already knew the dangers holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community 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 holding a manufacturer had no postsale duty to warn of dangers associated with an auger because numerous hodder factors were not present