1998)). Whether a duty is owed to a party under Florida law is a question of law for the court rather than a jury. Virgilio v. Ryland Group, Inc., 680 F.3d 1329, 1339 (11th Cir.2012) (citing McCain v. Florida Power Corp., 593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla.1992)); Insua v. JD/BBJ, LLC, 913 So.2d 1262, 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming summary judgment for manufacturer who had no duty to warn electrician of danger of electrocution, explaining that “[wjhether a duty exists is a question of law for the pp.3d 854, 864, 2014 WL 905115, *6 (M.D.La. March 7, 2014) (“Louisiana does not hold that a manufacturer is compelled to warn sophisticated purchasers of dangers of which the buyer either knows or should be aware.”) (citation omitted); Duane v. Oklahoma Gas & Elec. Co., 833 P.2d 284, 287 (Okl.1992) (<HOLDING>). Trinity argues (and pled as an affirmative
holding that an organization had no duty to warn of potential danger from sexual abuse of one of its volunteers where injured child was not associated with organizations programs holding that a grocery store employer had no duty to warn an employee that placing his hand in the doorjamb of a customers car is an obvious danger holding that oil suppliers had no duty to warn of danger to commercial customer whose negligence or oversight resulted in explosion that injured its employee holding that a pharmacist has a duty to warn when he or she knows of a risk to that particular customer holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution