abandoned the design defect claims. Thus, as Pike has now postured his case, he is no longer seeking to hold FDOT responsible for negligent installation, repair and maintenance of the guardrail, nor is he claiming a defect in Trinity’s design of the guardrail system. He is proceeding solely on a failure to warn theory against Trinity. IY. Discussion In Counts VII through X of his amended complaint (Doc. 54), Pike brings claims of negligence and strict liability against Trinity based on failure to warn, alleging that Trinity failed to warn FDOT personnel that parts from other guardrail systems could not be combined with Trinity’s ET-Plus guardrail system without compromising the system’s integrity. While Florida law recognizes claims of s, Inc., 427 So.2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (<HOLDING>); Zunck v. Gulf Oil Corp., 224 So.2d 386,
recognizing strict product liability actions 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 herbicide supplier bore no liability as a matter of law for companys misuse of product where company was aware that the herbicide would kill farmers crops if it was used near irrigation water explaining that a knowing misuse of a product does not render the manufacturer liable holding that state law product liability action was not preempted when manufacturer exercised a choice under fmvss 213 holding that whether a product is within comment k should be determined on a case by case basis where it is shown that the product is unavoidably unsafe and product of exceptional social need