defective condition of the range. It is undisputed that Maytag’s range was manufactured with a defect. We believe that the district court correctly determined that “adequate warnings will not render a product with a manufacturing defect non-defective,” regardless of whether compliance with the warnings would have rendered the product safe. Although Maytag provided numerous warnings with which Mr. Chapman failed to comply, “warnings cannot make a dangerous product safe.” Marshall v. Clark Equip. Co., 680 N.E.2d 1102, 1105 (Ind.App.1997). Accordingly, it was well within the discretion of the district court to hold that warnings will save a product from being defective only when a product is without manufacturing defects. See, e.g., Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318, 1323 (9th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Second, the district court did not err when
recognizing failure to test is a viable theory of recovery under missouri law in a manufacturing defect case holding that notice of a defect could not be imputed to a defendant inasmuch as it created the defect holding that although an adequate warning will prevent the reliance on a theory of strict liability in a failure to warn defect ease such a warning will not make safe a product with a manufacturing defect holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit a design defect products liability expert to submit an untimely addendum stating a new claim of failure to warn after defense expert refuted the basis of original design defect opinion