require knowledge by Bren-Tex that the lack of a ROPS rendered the tractor defective or dangerous. 9 . Statutory indemnity is similarly provided under the DTPA. See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.555 (Vernon 1987); Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996). 10 . See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Shears, 911 S.W.2d 379, 382-83 (Tex.1995) (stating that products liability law does not require a seller to warn of obvious risks and that the relevant inquiry is not whether the average person would know that a ROPS makes a front-end loader safer, but instead whether an average person would recognize that operating an industrial vehicle with open sides and top presents a risk of serious harm to the operator); Sander Custom Fabrication, Inc. v. Boyd, 967 S.W.2d 349, 350-51 (Tex.1998) (<HOLDING>). 11 . See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 401
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 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 that the determination of whether a products dangers are obvious is made from the perspective of an ordinary user of the product rather than an ordinary person who is unfamiliar with the product holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a product holding there is no duty to warn of risks obvious to the average user of the product