a larger product. Thus, cases involving the applicability of strict liability to a component manufacturer implicate concerns not necessarily applicable to questions of strict liability generally. Further, some of the cases cited by Symmetry did not deal with circumstances sufficiently analogous to be helpful. See Weggen v. Elwell-Parker Elec. Co., 510 F.Supp. 252, 255 (S.D. Iowa 1981) (addressing an employer’s responsibility to indemnify a contractor and the employer’s right to receive reimbursement of workmen’s compensation payments paid to employee injured as a result of a product manufactured by defendant to the specifications of employer); Hunt, 23 Ill.Dec. 574, 384 N.E.2d at 371 (addressing contractor’s liability for road sign manufactured and installed acco Mo. Ct. App. 1994) (<HOLDING>). In Housand v. Bra-Con Indus., 751 F.Supp. 541
holding that contractors who constructed a large machine to employers specifications cannot be liable to injuries caused to employee as a result of the absence of certain safety features holding that allegations that injuries were caused by misuse of ekg machine did not fall within waiver provisions of ttca because plaintiff had not made affirmative allegation that ekg machine was incorrectly used or that its results were erroneous and reasoning that misuse of information produced by ekg machine caused injuries rather than device itself holding that no judgment can be rendered against defendant who cannot be held liable holding that brand name manufacturers cannot be held liable for injuries caused by products they did not manufacture under arkansas law 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