risk; and (3) explained the consequences of not installing a ROPS when it sold the tractor. However, this report did not address whether the average user of a tractor would recognize the risk of harm from operating one without a ROPS or whether Bren-Tex had reason to know that someone was likely to operate the tractor without understanding that risk or otherwise lacking the competence to operate the tractor safely without one. Moreover, when Bren-Tex objected to the admission of this exhibit as hearsay and lacking testimony to authenticate it, it was expressly offered and admitted into evidence merely as evidence “of the case that was being built against Bren-Tex,” and not for the truth of the matters asserted. 13 . See Nichols v. Westfield Indus., Ltd., 380 N.W.2d 392, 401 (Iowa 1985) (<HOLDING>); Ky. Utils. Co. v. Auto Crane Co., 674 S.W.2d
holding that section 388 of the restatement does not require the supplier to give information concerning available means for amelioration of obvious dangers even though the supplier is aware of those means and the party to whom the chattel is supplied is not holding party seeking disqualification waives attorneyclient privilege as to the court so the court may assess the contents of allegedly confidential information and the party may present the information either in a hearing out of the presence of the party against whom confidentiality is to be protected or in camera inspection recognizing the availability of a cause of action by manufacturer against supplier under consumer fraud act holding that when the united states is a named party participates in the general action and is or may be interested in the outcome of an appeal even though it is not a party to the appeal it is a party for purposes of frap 4a 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