ÿWPCû; ·¤ >CXéýĈÖ"Ù9ÙjèòZ «q”ìœÚ•r¹ÍPpÈ6A%u²Ø_ì ÙO'xoà/¾õÎö‚y4 n!òȵ¯Ñ\_½¿€ªX è¿Çj¬~;jáÓ3§5˜¸;eÌbSÎ}¾³ˆ?…œÕ§®RÂ:껪ÞdžÆû°¹(¡¡iá PŠœÍ4^«èŸ¹DUÝo“¼mÝýí!ðdåšœ@7ì¢é‹á_­ºeý~$azŠ·xíiMœ\c È´ƒAŸèl–}œõ÷n9d˜aßÌãÙ¿4»õRV&}Ó2Â%-Ò½ÖÃK[¢¤v’‡>NAoŒçæ¯Uí}É5 §—êeÊdÊ¿nþEµ¼{ùË(·ª Šî‡âó±N¿‚@h;Á§OG„é¨ÃW«U;¶½g%'Æ»Ò>]3ƒÌé°rïÍ+k¯¸ù²1Unr(éÖË]%›Ùë3¹úÂòÈseÚ]¡x¤E<4(µ0^sWym¦ú_Ô—Ô#§ÑVB±•­à¯0‚oI‰ÏwvÁ“ë]ç›6úp$Œ¡Ê'6æÓñ¥h&5ZÉHå•6¶CQ‹;ßÅÊŠ†âê㸲©P «JxQGxÇÄP‡nsë¿ÓŽ݇ L# (U>3 %q 0GwU+N¾w@ 4L`†oõ µ÷‹¬j7E¡ߣ‚œÖ²ˆžÊ¤?nn­$­$­$ Ç'Ç'Ç'g)ÿo)ºn+ 0Õ(- 0Dý-ý- BA.A.A.A.A.A.A.û^.UNY/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/Y/:§/–á1UNw3Å3UNà5ç.6UN;˜c;˜IBM Laser Printer 4019IBM4019ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 <èÀ( 9Z &Courier RegularX(¯ö$¡¡Ô€Xu XXXÔ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular .ÕÇ.È.É.Ê.ÕË.EÌ.Í.DÎ.EÏ.Zi#3|xÏ. |Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€support€of€that€argument,€the€Downs€again€rely€on€the€expert€testimony€of€Dr.€Chisholm€who€statedÐ ° Ðthat€several€cost„effective€measures€can€be€taken€to€reduce€the€risk€of€odor€fade.€€Those€measures€include€over„¼odorization,€precise€testing€of€odorization€levels€on€a€frequent€basis,€alarm€systems€which€detect€and€warn€of€gasÏaccumulation,€rigorous€pipeline€maintenance,€especially€for€older€pipeline€systems€like€Montezumaððs,€andÐ 8ˆ  Ðconsumer€education€programs.€€Chisholm€further€stated€that€necessary€safety€precautions€vary€among€utilitiesÏdepending€on€the€type€of€pipeline€used,€its€age€and€the€climate€in€which€it€is€located.×Ã×× C ×€€Therefore,€ChisholmÏconcluded€that€odorant€producers,€as€specialists€in€their€field,€are€in€the€best€position€to€educate€both€utilityÏcompanies€and€natural€gas€consumers€about€odor€fade€and€to€alert€both€parties€as€to€the€more€specific€risks€thatÏmay€be€implicated.€ øÝ ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€In€their€original€complaint,€Downs€named€the€Town€of€Montezuma,€Montezuma€Municipal€Gas€Utility,Ð ° ÐUtility€Safety€and€Design,€Inc.€and€Panhandle€Eastern€Pipeline€Company€as€defendants.€€She€later€amended€herÏcomplaint€to€include€Natural€Gas€Odorizing,€Vesta€Energy€Company€and€Black€Pipeline€Construction,€Inc.€€ «Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Code€of€Federal€Regulations€requires€that€natural€gas€be€odorized€so€that€it€is€readily€detectableÐ ° Ðby€a€person€with€a€normal€sense€of€smell€at€one„fifth€the€lower€flammable€limit€of€the€gas€in€the€air.€€49€C.F.R.Ïðð€192.625(a). Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Dean€typically€returned€home€from€work€shortly€after€midnight.€€However,€on€the€night€of€theÐ ° Ðexplosion,€Dean€helped€a€co„worker€after€their€shift€ended,€and€he€returned€home€later€than€usual. `Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Natural€gas€is€odorless,€colorless€and€highly€explosive.€€Consequently,€federal€law€requires€that€utilitiesÐ ° Ðadd€odorant€to€their€natural€gas€lines.€€The€odorant€gives€natural€gas€a€"rotten€egg"€smell€that€warns€of€a€gas€leak.€ÏHowever,€as€natural€gas€passes€through€soil,€it€can€lose€its€odorized€characteristics€and€become€undetectable€byÏhuman€senses.€€This€process€is€referred€to€by€the€parties€as€"odor€fade."€ ÕÝ ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Oral€argument€was€held€on€July€9,€1997. Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€This€is€one€of€two€proximate€cause€issues€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€discussion€òòinfraóó€note€12. Ñ   Ñ ÌÝ ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Montezuma€admitted€in€its€response€to€a€request€for€admission€that,€"[i]t›€is€common€knowledge€andÐ ° Ðknown€to€Montezuma€.€.€.€that€when€odorized€natural€gas€leaks€from€underground€pipe€and€passes€through€soil,Ïthe€natural€gas€can€lose€its€odorized€characteristics."€€ Ñ ° Ñ üÝ ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€question€remains€in€this€case€whether€NGOððsðð€failure€to€provide€an€adequate€warning€was€theÐ ° Ðproximate€cause€of€the€Downsðð€injuries.€€òòAmerican€Jurisprudence€2dóó€states:Ð ˆØ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àIn€approaching€proximate€cause€in€warnings€cases,€the€focus€in€on€the€effect€of€giving€a€warningÏon€the€actual€circumstances€surrounding€the€accident.€€The€question€is€whether€the€plaintiffððsÏinjury€was€a€natural€and€probable€consequence€of€the€failure€to€warn€about€the€dangersÏassociated€with€the€product.€€This€issue€may€require€that€the€plaintiff€show€that€an€adequateÏwarning€would€have€altered€the€conduct€which€led€to€the€injury.€.€.€.€The€plaintiff€may€also€beÏrequired€to€prove€separately€that€the€injuries€were€caused€by€the€product€from€which€theÏadequate€warning€was€missing.€.€.€.€Liability€in€failure€to€warn€cases€cannot€be€predicated€uponÏthe€claim€that€the€giving€of€a€warning€would€have€prevented€the€purchase€of€the€product.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ63òòa€Am.€Juróó.€2d,€òòProducts€Liabilityóó€ðð€1171. ÀÝ ƒ!ˆV$ÝÓ  Óà  àÔ‡XB0XXXÔÔ‡&K½&XXB0ÔòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Chisholm€specifically€referred€to€pipelines,€like€Montezumaððs€€that€are€old€and€lack€ð ðcathodicÐ ° Ðprotection.ðð€€Such€pipelines€are€more€susceptible€to€gas€leaks.€€He€further€stated€that€gas€leaks€are€more€difficultÏto€detect€in€winter€and€in€colder€climates.€€Record€at€206„08.€ 5Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€NGO€initially€raised€the€"sophisticated€user"€defense€in€its€answer€to€the€Downsðð€amended€complaint.€Ð ° ÐHowever,€during€oral€argument,€NGO€referred€to€that€defense€as€the€"learned€intermediary"€exception.€€In€Indiana,Ïas€in€other€states,€the€learned€intermediary€exception€is€limited€to€prescription€drugs€and€medical€devices.€€òòSeeóóÐ `° ÐòòOrtho€Pharmaceutical€Corp.€v.€Chapmanóó,€180€Ind.€App.€33,€388€N.E.2d€541,€549€(1979).€€The€"sophisticatedÐ 8ˆ Ðuser"€and€"sophisticated€intermediary"€exception€are€related€but€distinct€concepts€although€the€terms€are€oftenÏused€interchangeably€along€with€the€"learned€intermediary€and€"bulk€supplier"€exceptions€to€the€duty€to€warn.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòDole€Foods€v.€North€Carolina€Foam€Indus.€Inc.óó,€935€P.2d€880,€881€n.3€(Ariz.€App.€1996).€€Because€of€theÐ À  Ðconfusion€that€has€resulted€in€the€appropriate€terminology€and€because€several€of€these€exceptions€have€neverÏbeen€applied€in€Indiana,€we€look€to€the€substance€of€NGOððs€argument€over€its€form.€€Accordingly,€we€analyzeÏNGOððs€defense€under€the€sophisticated€intermediary€exception. Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Section€388€of€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€2d€€specifically€relates€to€product€liability€actionsÐ ° Ðgrounded€in€negligence.€€However,€the€exceptions€to€the€duty€to€warn€have€also€been€applied€to€failure„to„warnÏclaims€founded€in€strict€liability€on€the€theory€that€there€is€no€doctrinal€distinction€between€negligence€and€strictÏliability€failure„to„warn€actions€under€the€Restatement.€€òòSeeóó€€63òòaóó€Aòòm.€Jur.€2óódòò,€òòProducts€Liabilityóóóó€ðð€1194;€òòseeóóÐ 8ˆ Ðòòalsoóó€òòJarrellóó,€528€N.E.2d€at€1168€n.7;€òòDole€Foodóó,€935€P.2d€at€880€n.4. –Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€Since€the€initiation€of€Downsðð€lawsuit,€the€Indiana€Product€Liability€Act€has€been€amended€Ð ° Ðsubstantially€by€P.L.€278„1995.€€However,€our€analysis€is€based€upon€the€Act€as€it€read€prior€to€the€1995Ïamendments. õÝ ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Act€defines€"user€or€consumer"€as:Ð ° ÐÌà8  à[A]€purchaser,€any€individual€who€uses€or€consumes€the€product,€or€any€other€person€who,€whileÏacting€for€or€on€behalf€of€the€injured€party,€was€in€possession€and€control€of€the€product€inÏquestion.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌòòInd.€€Code€ðð€33„1„1.5„2.óó °Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€We€caution€that€a€manufacturerððs€reliance€on€an€intermediaryððs€constructive€knowledge€rather€thanÐ ° Ðon€actual€knowledge€is€more€problematic€in€instances€in€which€the€dangers€associated€with€the€productððs€use€areÏrelatively€severe.(…(3p?$¤¤Ý ƒ¯ö!ÝÔ€X'hXXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÔ€X²CXXX'hÔÔ€&‹Ð&XX²CÔà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó d ñÝ ƒ!ʶ$ÝÓ  Óà  àÔ€,XÂKXXXÔÔ€,&»í&XXÂKÔòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€This€is€one€of€two€proximate€cause€issues€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€discussion€òòinfraóó€note€11.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular 0Ý ƒ!p?$ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'ÔÔ€&«Š&XX’@Ôà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€At€oral€argument,€Downs€alluded€to€a€second€theory€of€strict€liability,€i.e.,€that€odor€fade€constitutesÐ ° Ða€manufacturing€defect€under€the€Act.€€However,€Downs€did€not€cogently€argue€that€theory€or€cite€to€relevantÏauthority€either€before€the€trial€court€or€on€appeal,€and€we€decline€to€address€it€on€review.€€òòSeeóó€Ind.€Appellate€RuleÐ `° Ð8.3(7). ŒÝ ƒ!ʶ$ÝÓ  Óà  àÔ€FXÂKXXXÔÔ€F&»í&XXÂKÔòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€Code€of€Federal€Regulations€requires€that€natural€gas€be€odorized€so€that€it€is€readily€detectableÐ ° Ðby€a€person€with€a€normal€sense€of€smell€at€one„fifth€the€lower€flammable€limit€of€the€gas€in€the€air.€€49€C.F.R.Ïðð€192.625(a).(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular Ý ƒ!ʶ$ÝÓ  Óà  àÔ€HXÂKXXXÔÔ€H&»í&XXÂKÔòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€At€oral€argument,€Downs€alluded€to€a€second€theory€of€strict€liability,€i.e.,€that€odor€fade€constitutesÐ ° Ða€manufacturing€defect€under€the€Act.€€However,€Downs€did€not€cogently€argue€that€theory€or€cite€to€relevantÏauthority€either€before€the€trial€court€or€on€appeal,€and€we€decline€to€address€it€on€review.€€òòSeeóó€Ind.€Appellate€RuleÐ `° Ð8.3(7).(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÝÝ ƒ!ʶ$ÝÓ  Óà  àÔ€JXÂKXXXÔÔ€J&»í&XXÂKÔòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý€€The€question€remains€in€this€case€whether€NGOððsðð€failure€to€provide€an€adequate€warning€was€theÐ ° Ðproximate€cause€of€the€Downsðð€injuries.€€òòAmerican€Jurisprudence€2dóó€states:Ð ˆØ Ðà8  àÐ Ð Ð  Ðà8  àIn€approaching€proximate€cause€in€warnings€cases,€the€focus€in€on€the€effect€of€giving€a€warningÏon€the€actual€circumstances€surrounding€the€accident.€€The€question€is€whether€the€plaintiffððsÏinjury€was€a€natural€and€probable€consequence€of€the€failure€to€warn€about€the€dangersÏassociated€with€the€product.€€This€issue€may€require€that€the€plaintiff€show€that€an€adequateÏwarning€would€have€altered€the€conduct€which€led€to€the€injury.€.€.€.€The€plaintiff€may€also€beÏrequired€to€prove€separately€that€the€injuries€were€caused€by€the€product€from€which€theÏadequate€warning€was€missing.€.€.€.€Liability€in€failure€to€warn€cases€cannot€be€predicated€uponÏthe€claim€that€the€giving€of€a€warning€would€have€prevented€the€purchase€of€the€product.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌ63òòa€Am.€Juróó.€2d,€òòProducts€Liabilityóó€ðð€1171.(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ŽÝ ƒ!ʶ$ÝÓ  Óà  àÔ€XÂKXXXÔÔ€&»í&XXÂKÔòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÝ ƒ¯ö!ÝÔ€X'XXXÔÝ  Ý›ÑаÑÑ€°ÑÓ*°,X` “X°œX*ÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÔ€X’@XXX'Ôò òÔ‡RÒ*RXX’@ÔÑ€_WÑÑ€OYÑFOR€PUBLICATIONÔ#†X’@XRRÒ*»#ÔÐ € ÐÌó óòòÌATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLANTóó:à  àòòATTORNEYS€FOR€APPELLEEóó:Ð    ÐÌò òBURTON€M.€HARRISà  àGEORGE€M.€PLEWSó óÐ x ø Ðò òJULIA€BLACKWELL€GELINASó óà  àò òJEFFREY€D.€CLAFLINó óÐ d ä Ðò òSANDRA€BOYD€WILLIAMSó óà  àò òDONNA€C.€MARRONó óÐ PÐ ÐLocke€Reynolds€Boyd€&€Weisellà  àPlews€Shadley€Racher€&€BraunÐ <¼ ÐIndianapolis,€Indianaà  àIndianapolis,€IndianaÐ (¨  ÐÌò òW.€MICHAEL€SHINKLEÐ €  Ðó óDavenport,€IowaÐ ìl  ÐÌò òDAVID€SHINKLEÐ ÄD  Ðó óDes€Moines,€IowaÐ °0 ÐÌßA€$) °°xdE°‡xAßÐ ˆ ÐÌà@'ìàò òÔ€RÒ*RXX’@ÔIN€THEó óˆÐ ƒ Ðà@ø ø ìàò òCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€INDIANAó óÔ€X’@XRRÒ*ԈРËK ÐÌßA€$) °°xdE°þxAßÐ ÿ ÐÌNATURAL€GAS€ODORIZING,€INC.,à  à)Ð úz Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellant„Defendant,à  à)Ð ÒR Ðà  àà ` àà  à)ÌÓ<°,X` ÚÈ‘X°,X` “X<Óà  àà ` àvs.à  à)à Ú àNo.€61A01„9612„CV„396Ð ª * Ðà  àà ` àà  à)ÌKRISTY€S.€DOWNS,€Individually€andà  à)Ð ‚" Ðas€Personal€Representative€of€theà  à)Ð n#î ÐESTATE€OF€IVAN€DEAN€DOWNS,€andà  à)Ð Z$Ú  Ðas€Guardian€of€SUSAN€DOWNS€andà  à)Ð F%Æ! ÐMATTHEW€DOWNS,à  à)Ð 2&²" Ðà  àà ` àà  à)Ìà  àAppellee„Plaintiff.à  à)Ð  (Š $ ÐÌßA€$) °°xdE°á)xAßÐ â)b"& ÐÌà@ò ò ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€PARKE€CIRCUIT€COURTˆÌà@  ìàThe€Honorable€Thomas€K.€Milligan,€Special€JudgeˆÌà@ìàCause€No.€61C01„9403„CP„81ˆÌÌßA€$) °°xdE°Œ.xAßÐ . ', ÐÌà@¨¨!ìàò òSeptember€œ1ñ›.ñ9ñ›.ññœ.ñ8ñœ.ñ,›€1997ˆÐ ˆ/(. Ðó óà@88ìàò òOPINION€„€FOR€PUBLICATIONó óˆÐ ° ÐÌò òÌNAJAM,€Judgeó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÌѰ€ÑÑ7€’@XXdìXXdÈ7ÑÓÓÓ0 °§X°,X` ÚÈ‘X0ÓÔ€ŠDªŠXX’@Ôà@XX ìàò òSTATEMENT€OF€THE€CASEó óˆÐ 8 ˆ Ðà  àBy€amended€complaint,€Kristy€S.€Downs,€individually,€as€the€personal€representativeÏof€the€Estate€of€Ivan€Dean€Downs€and€as€the€guardian€of€Susan€and€Matthew€DownsÏ("Downs"),€joined€Natural€Gas€Odorizing,€Inc.€("NGO")€as€a€defendant€in€a€previouslyÏinitiated€lawsuit.׃ ×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Downs€alleged€that€NGO€was€strictly€liable€under€the€Indiana€ProductÐ  p  ÐLiability€Act€for€the€death€of€Ivan€Dean€Downs€("Dean"),€and€for€the€injuries€that€KristyÏDowns€and€her€children,€Susan€and€Matthew,€had€sustained€in€a€natural€gas€explosion.€ÏDowns€maintained€that€the€odorant€supplied€by€NGO€had€lost€its€distinctive€odor,€that€it€didÏnot€serve€its€purpose€as€a€warning€agent€and€that€NGO€failed€to€warn€either€Montezuma€orÏthe€Downs€that€the€odorant€could€lose€its€odorized€characteristics.׃ ×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€NGO€moved€forÐ øH Ðsummary€judgment.€€After€a€hearing€and€several€related€motions,€the€trial€court€deniedÏsummary€judgment€in€part€and€granted€summary€judgment€in€part€for€NGO.€€NGO€nowÏappeals,€and€Downs€cross„appeals.Ìà  àWe€reverse€in€part,€affirm€in€part€and€remand.׃@×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð Ø#(  Ðà@XX'ìàò òISSUESó óñ.ñœñÈ.ñ׃D×ñÈ.ññÈ.ñ׃G×ñÈ.ñÝ ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›ñ.ñˆÐ ° Ðà  àNGO€and€Downs€present€several€issues€for€our€review€which€we€consolidate€and€Ïrestate€as:Ìà  à1.€€Whether€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€the€odorantððs€failure€toÏperform€as€intended.Ìà  à2.€€Whether€NGO€had€a€duty€to€warn€about€the€dangers€associated€with€odor€fade.Ìà  à3.€€Whether€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€NGOððs€satisfaction€of€its€dutyÏto€warn.Ìà  àà@ŠŠ(ìàò òFACTSˆÐ xÈ Ðó óà  àThe€Downs€family€lived€at€1113€Jefferson€Street€in€Montezuma.€€Their€residenceÐ €Ð Ðconsisted€of€a€one„story€home€with€a€full€basement€and€a€crawl€space.€€They€used€a€wood„¼burning€stove€in€their€living€room€for€heat€during€the€winter€months€and€also€employed€aÏgas„fueled€furnace€and€water€heater,€both€located€in€the€basement.€€Montezuma€MunicipalÏGas€Utility€("Montezuma")€supplied€the€natural€gas€to€the€residents€of€Montezuma,€includingÏthe€Downs€family.€€NGO,€an€Oklahoma€corporation,€supplied€the€odorant€to€Montezuma€thatÏâ âwas€used€in€Montezumaððs€natural€gas€supply€as€required€by€federal€law.ñÇ.ñ׃ ð×ñÇ.ññÇ.ñ׃Eð×ñÇ.ñÝ ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð P"  Ðà  àOn€January€21,€1993,€the€night€of€the€explosion,€Kristy€and€her€children€returnedÏâ âhome€after€9:00€p.m.€and€were€in€bed€by€about€11:30€p.m.€€Dean€returned€home€from€workÏat€approximately€12:30€a.m.׃ ×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€Around€1:10€a.m.,€the€Downsðð€house€exploded,€blowing€outÐ  ð Ðthe€walls€and€collapsing€the€roof.€€Witnesses€reported€hearing€two€explosions.€€ThoseÏexplosions€and€the€resulting€fire€destroyed€the€residence.€€Kristy,€Suzanne€and€MatthewÏsustained€injuries,€including€second€and€third„degree€burns.€€Investigators€discovered€DeanððsÏbody€the€following€day€in€what€had€been€the€living€room.Ìà  àThe€National€Transportation€Safety€Board€issued€an€accident€report€which€concludedÏthat€"the€probable€cause€of€the€accident€was€the€failure€of€a€corroded€bare€steel€[pipe]Ïcoupling€under€stress€from€a€growing€tree€root€pressing€downward€on€the€curb€box€andÏtransferring€the€load€to€the€pipe€and€coupling."€€The€Indiana€Utility€Regulatory€CommissionÏalso€issued€a€report€which€stated:ÌÓÓà8  àThe€service€line€was€leaking€at€a€screw€joint€coupling€just€under€the€edge€ofÏthe€road€east€of€the€house.€€Cause€of€leak€probably€corrosion€at€screw€jointÏthreads.€€A€hard€dry€ball€of€dirt€about€leak€indicated€leakage€for€about€twoÏweeks.€€Entire€area„„gravel„„and€bar€tests€showed€gas€up€to€house€and€to€houseÏœdirect[ly›]€south.ÓÓÐ Ð Ð  Ðà  àDowns€filed€suiò òtó ó€against€multiple€parties€involved€in€the€sale,€distribution,€and€supplyÐ 8"ˆ Ðof€natural€gas€to€the€town€of€Montezuma€for€wrongful€death,€personal€injury,€and€propertyÏdamage.€€Downsðð€Amended€Complaint,€as€it€relates€to€NGO,€alleges:ÌÓÓà8  àThe€odorant€sold€by€[NGO]€to€Montezuma€failed€to€alert€the€Downs€or€anyÏother€person€to€the€dangerous€accumulation€of€natural€gas€in€the€DownsÏresidence€prior€to€the€explosion€and€fire.€€The€odorant€was€inherently€defectiveÐ (*x%& ÐÑ_WÑÑ °ÑÑ  ÑñÈ.ñÑ_WÑÑ °ÑÑ  ÑÑ_WÑÑ °ÑÑ  ÑñÈ.ññÇ.ñÑ_WÑÑ °ÑÑ  ÑñÇ.ñor€became€defective€due€to€a€failure€by€[NGO]€to€instruct€Montezuma€in€itsÏproper€use,€or€to€warn€Montezuma€about€conditions€under€which€the€odorantÏmight€lose€its€odor.€€[NGO]€is€strictly€liable€in€tort,€for€damage€suffered€by€theÏñÈ.ñÑ_WÑÑ °ÑÑ  ÑñÈ.ññ.ñÑ_WÑÑ °ÑÑ  Ññ.ñDownsðð€family€.€.€.€to€the€extent€that€it€supplied€odorant€to€Montezuma€in€aÏñ.ñÑ_WÑÑ °ÑÑ  Ññ.ñdefective€condition€œunreasonabl[y›]€dangerous€to€consumers€and€their€property.Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓwÓà  ààHàò òˆà@  ìàDISCUSSION€AND€DECISIONˆÐ ˆ è Ðà@ff!ìàStandard€of€Reviewˆà È àó óÐ  ð Ðò òà  àó óSummary€judgment€is€only€appropriate€when€there€is€no€genuine€issue€of€material€factÐ ð  Ðand€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Ind.€Trial€Rule€56(C).€€AtÏthe€time€of€filing€a€summary€judgment€motion€or€response,€a€party€shall€designate€to€theÏcourt€all€parts€of€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€interrogatories,€admissions,€matters€ofÏjudicial€notice€and€any€other€matters€upon€which€the€party€relies€for€purposes€of€the€motion.€ÏT.€R.€56(C).€€Once€the€movant€has€sustained€this€burden,€the€opponent€must€respond€byÏsetting€forth€specific€facts€showing€a€genuine€issue€for€trial;€he€may€not€simply€rest€on€theÏallegations€of€his€pleadings.€€òòStephenson€v.€Ledbetteróó,€596€N.E.2d€1369,€1371€(Ind.€1992).€Ð X¸ ÐIn€ruling€on€a€summary€judgment€motion,€all€evidence€must€be€construed€in€favor€of€the€non„¼moving€party,€and€all€doubts€as€to€the€existence€of€a€material€issue€must€be€resolved€againstÏthe€moving€party.€€òòBailey€v.€Manors€Groupóó,€642€N.E.2d€249,€252€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1994),€òòtransóó.€Ð @#  Ðòòdeniedóó.€€When€reviewing€the€grant€or€denial€of€summary€judgment,€we€apply€the€sameÐ 8%˜  Ðstandard€as€that€used€by€the€trial€court.€€òòRamon€v.€Glenroy€Constr.€Co.óó,€609€N.E.2d€1123,Ð 0'!" Ð1127€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1993),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó.Ð ()ˆ#$ Ðò òÌÐ  -€'( ÐÑOYÑѰ ÑÑ  ÑœñÍ.ñÌñÍ.ññÈ.ñÑOYÑѰ ÑÑ  ÑñÈ.ñ›à@D D ìàThe€Indiana€Product€Liability€Act€and€Strict€Liabilityó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àStrict€product€liability€actions€in€Indiana€are€governed€by€the€Indiana€Product€LiabilityÏAct€("the€Act").€€òòInd.€Codeóó€ðððð€33„1„1.5„1€to€33„1„1.5„8€(amended€1995).׃×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€productÐ ¨ø Ðmanufacturer€is€liable€under€the€following€statutory€terms:ÌÓÓà8  à(a)€€One€who€sells,€leases,€or€otherwise€puts€into€the€stream€of€commerce€anyÏproduct€in€a€òòdefective€condition€unreasonably€dangerousóó€to€any€user€or€Óþ)ÓД ä Ð Ð  ÐÓÓconsumer€or€to€his€property€is€subject€to€liability€for€physical€harm€caused€by€that€productÏto€the€user€or€consumer€or€to€his€property€if€that€user€or€consumer€is€in€the€class€of€personsÏthat€the€seller€should€reasonably€foresee€as€being€subject€to€the€harm€caused€by€the€defectiveÏcondition,€and€if:ÌÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(1)€€the€seller€is€engaged€in€the€business€of€selling€such€aÏproduct;€andÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(2)€€the€product€is€expected€to€and€does€reach€the€user€orÏconsumer€without€substantial€alteration€in€the€condition€inÏwhich€it€is€sold€by€the€person€sought€to€be€held€liable€under€thisÏchapter.€€Ð ` x` x ÐÌòòInd.€Code€ðð€33„1„1.5„3óó(a)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Act€further€provides€Óì*Óin€relevant€part:Ð X¨ ÐÓÓà  à(a)€€A€product€is€in€a€defective€condition€under€this€chapter€if,€at€the€time€it€is€¼à  àconveyed€by€the€seller€to€another€party,€it€is€in€a€condition:€€ÌÌà  àà8 ` à(1)€€not€contemplated€by€reasonable€persons€among€those€consideredÏexpected€users€or€consumers€of€the€product;€andÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(2)€that€will€be€unreasonably€dangerous€to€the€expected€user€orÏconsumer€when€used€in€reasonably€expectable€ways€of€handling€orÏconsumption.Ð ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÓ5.ÓÓÓÌà  à(b)€€A€product€is€defective€under€this€chapter€if€the€seller€fails€to:ÌÐ $)t$% Ðà  àòòà8 ` à(1)€€properly€package€or€label€the€product€to€give€reasonable€warningsÐ ° Ðof€danger€about€the€product;€orÐ ` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àà8 ` à(2)€give€reasonably€complete€instruction€on€the€proper€use€of€theÏproductóó;òòРð` Ð ` Ð  ÐÌà  àwhen€the€seller,€by€exercising€reasonable€diligence,€could€have€made€such€warningsÌà  àor€instructions€available€to€the€user€or€consumeróó.Ð ” ä ÐÌÓi0ÓòòInd.€Code€ðð€33„1„1.5„2óó.5€(emphasis€added).€€To€establish€a€prima€facie€case€of€strict€liability,Ð Œ Ü  Ðthe€plaintiff€must€show€that€(1)€the€product€is€defective€and€unreasonably€dangerous,€(2)€theÏdefective€condition€existed€at€the€time€the€product€left€the€defendantððs€control,€and€(3)€theÏdefective€condition€is€the€proximate€cause€of€the€plaintiffððs€injuries.Ìò òà@ffìàIssue€One:€€"Odor€Fade"ó óˆÐ l¼ Ðà  àDownsðð€action€is€based€upon€NGOððs€failure€to€warn€Montezuma€and/or€the€DownsÏabout€the€odorantððs€allegedly€latent€defect€of€"odor€fade."€€As€a€threshold€question,€we€mustÏdetermine€whether€Downs€has€established€that€odor€fade,€and€thus,€the€duty€to€warn€againstÏit,€may€have€been€implicated€in€the€natural€gas€explosion€at€issue€in€this€case.€€òòSeeóó€òòIssue€Twoóó,Ð T¤ Ðdiscussed€òòinfraóó.€€Stated€differently,€to€defeat€NGOððs€motion€for€summary€judgment,€DownsÐ Lœ Ðmust€demonstrate€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€fact€exists€as€to€whether€the€odorant€failedÏto€perform€as€intended,€thereby€proximately€causing€their€injuries.ñÌ.ñœ×ƒ×ñÌ.ññÌ.ñ׃+×ñÌ.ñÝ ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כР<#Œ Ðà  àDowns€directs€us€to€the€report€issued€by€the€Indiana€Utility€Regulatory€CommissionÏwhich€concluded€that€gas€had€been€leaking€from€the€corroded€pipeline€for€two€weeks.€ÏDowns€also€designated€the€affidavit€of€Dr.€Douglas€B.€Chisholm,€an€expert€in€the€field€ofÏnatural€gas€and€odorants,€who€testified€that€natural€gas€was€present€in€the€Downsðð€basementÐ +l&' Ðat€detectible€levels€for€days€prior€to€the€explosion.€€Tests€performed€by€the€Indiana€UtilityÏRegulatory€Commission€indicate€that€significant€concentrations€of€natural€gas€remained€inÏthe€soil€almost€twenty„four€hours€after€the€gas€line€had€been€turned€off€on€the€morning€afterÏthe€explosion.€€Dr.€Chisholm€testified€in€his€affidavit€that€because€"[œt]he›€rate€that€gasÏdissipates€at€atmospheric€pressure€is€approximately€equal€to€the€rate€that€gas€will€accumulateÏunder€the€same€conditions,"€one€could€assume€that€gas€had€been€accumulating€in€the€DownsððÏbasement€over€a€period€of€days.Ìà  àChisholm€further€stated€that€accumulated€gas€in€the€basement€of€the€Downsðð€homeÏwould€have€migrated€upward€into€the€house€through€duct€work,€vents,€piping€holes,€electricalÏconduit€holes,€sewer€drains,€and€other€cutouts€in€the€floor€above€the€basement€area.€€Finally,ÏChisholm€testified€that€eye„witness€reports€stating€that€there€were€at€least€two€differentÏexplosions€indicate€that€gas€was€present€at€explosive€concentrations€both€in€the€basement€andÏin€the€house€at€the€time€that€the€gas€was€initially€ignited.€€Chisholm€concludes€that€"[œi]f›€theÏodorant€added€by€Montezuma€to€their€gas€system€was€functioning€as€it€should€have,€the€odorÏof€gas€should€have€been€startling€.€.€.€."€€Dean€Downs€arrived€home€just€prior€to€theÏexplosion.€€Upon€returning€home€from€work,€he€would€typically€eat€a€snack€and€read€beforeÏgoing€to€bed.€€Thus,€it€is€reasonable€to€assume€that€he€was€in€a€position€to€detect€the€smellÏof€natural€gas€prior€to€the€explosion.€€à À àÐ (&x!" Ðà  àNGOððs€designated€evidence€includes€an€affidavit€from€Duane€V.€Kniebes,€also€anÏexpert€in€natural€gas€and€odorants,€who€testified€that€the€evidence€surrounding€the€explosionÏconclusively€demonstrates€that€neither€Kristy,€Suzanne€nor€Matthew€Downs€"ever€had€theirÏnoses€in€natural€gas"€when€they€went€to€sleep€on€the€night€of€the€explosion.€€Record€at€4.€Ð .X)* ÐThat€is,€the€Downs€were€not€in€a€position€to€detect€the€odorantððs€smell.€€Kniebes€furtherÏasserted€that€the€evidence€does€not€establish€whether€Dean€Downs€detected€the€odor€ofÏnatural€gas€or€whether€he€was€even€in€a€position€to€detect€the€natural€gas.€€Finally,€KniebesÏstated€that€the€evidence€shows€that€gas€accumulated€in€the€Downsðð€basement€for€only€aÏ"relatively€brief€time€(approximately€two€hours€or€less)€.€.€."€and€would€not€have€migratedÏinto€the€home.€€Thus,€he€concluded€that€the€gas€would€not€have€been€detectable€by€theÏDowns.Ìà  àThe€designated€evidence€leads€us€to€conclude€that€a€genuine€issue€of€material€factÏexists€as€to€whether€the€odorant€performed€as€intended.€€The€parties€dispute€the€duration€ofÏthe€gas€leak,€the€extent€to€which€the€gas€had€migrated€into€the€home,€if€at€all,€as€well€as€theÏDownsðð€ability€to€detect€the€smell€of€natural€gas.€€Those€issues€must€be€decided€by€the€trierÏof€fact.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€partial€denial€of€summary€judgment€on€thisÏissue.Ìà@HHìàò òIssue€Two:€€Duty€to€WarnˆÐ H˜ Ðó óà  àDowns€argues€that€NGO€had€a€duty€to€warn€about€odor€fade€and€that€the€failure€to€doÐ H ˜ Ðso€rendered€the€product€both€defective€and€unreasonably€dangerous.€€NGO€counters€that€theÏduty€to€warn€did€not€arise€because€the€odorant€is€not€a€dangerous€product.€€We€disagree€withÏNGOððs€contention.€€Ìà  àA€product€may€be€defective€within€the€meaning€of€the€Act€because€of€a€manufacturingÏflaw,€a€defective€design,€or€a€failure€to€warn€of€dangers€in€the€productððs€use.€€òòHoffman€v.Ð  *p%& ÐE.W.€Bliss€Co.óó,€448€N.E.2d€277,€281€(Ind.€1983);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€63€òòAm.€Juróó.€2d,€òòProducts€Liabilityóó€Ð ,h'( Ððð€561.€€The€duty€to€warn€consists€of€two€duties:€€(1)€to€provide€adequate€instructions€for€safeÐ .`)* Ðuse,€and€(2)€to€provide€a€warning€as€to€dangers€inherent€in€improper€use.€63€òòAm.€Jur.€óóat€ððÐ ° Ð1136.€€The€determination€of€whether€a€duty€to€warn€exists€is€generally€a€question€of€law€forÏthe€court€to€decide€rather€than€one€of€fact.€€However,€the€adequacy€of€the€warning€is€aÏquestion€of€fact€for€the€jury.€€òòBautista€v.€Verson€Allsteel€Press€Co.óó,€504€N.E.2d€772,€776€(Ill.Ð ˜ è ÐApp.€1987).€Ìà  àA€manufacturer€has€a€duty€to€warn€with€respect€to€latent€dangerous€characteristics€ofÏthe€product,€even€though€there€is€no€"defect"€in€the€product€itself.€€œ63òòa€Am.›€Juróó.€2d,€òòProductsÐ €Ð  ÐLiabilityóó€€ðð€1123€(1997).€€A€failure€to€warn€of€a€latent€danger€will,€without€more,€cause€theÐ xÈ  Ðproduct€to€be€unreasonably€dangerous€as€marketed.€€òòSeeóó€òòJarrell€v.€Monsanto€Co.óó€528€N.E.2dÐ pÀ Ð1158,€1166€(Ind.€Ct.€App.€1988),€òòtransóó.€òòdeniedóó€("the€lack€of€adequate€warning€makes€aÐ h¸ Ðdangerous€product€unreasonably€dangerous").€€Warnings€are€typically€expected€on€productsÏthat€are€intentionally€marketed€despite€dangerous€properties.€€òòIdóó.€€The€Act€imposes€liabilityÐ X¨ Ðupon€a€manufacture€who€puts€into€the€stream€of€commerce€any€product€without€a€reasonablyÏadequate€warning€thereby€leaving€it€in€an€unreasonably€dangerous€condition€to€any€user,€ifÏsuch€warning€could€be€given€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence.€€òòIdóó.€Ð @  Ðà  àOdorant€is€specifically€manufactured€to€serve€as€a€warning€agent€for€natural€gas€leaks.€ÏAlthough€odorant€is€not€flammable€or€explosive€on€its€own,€it€is€intended€to€be€commingledÏwith€natural€gas,€an€inherently€dangerous€product.€€The€safe€use€of€natural€gas€requires€theÏsafe€use€of€an€odorant.€€NGO€admits€that€it€is€impossible€to€manufacturer€an€odorant€that€isÏnot€susceptible€to€odor€fade€and€that€every€odorant,€including€the€one€at€issue€here,€containsÏthis€latent€characteristic.€€Thus,€given€the€nature€of€the€odorant,€the€manner€in€which€it€isÏused€and€the€reason€for€its€use,€we€conclude€that€NGO€had€a€duty€to€provide€adequateÐ .X)* Ðwarnings€and€instructions€with€its€product€about€odor€fade.€€The€failure€to€satisfy€that€dutyÏrenders€the€product€both€defective€and€unreasonably€dangerous.€Ìà@ü ü ìàò òIssue€Three:€€Satisfaction€of€NGOððs€Duty€to€Warnó óˆà x àÐ  ð Ðà@¸ ¸ ìàAò ò.€€NGOððs€Duty€to€Warn€the€Ultimate€User€or€Consumeró óˆÐ ¨ ø Ðà  àIn€granting€partial€summary€judgment€in€favor€of€NGO,€the€trial€court€stated€that€"[œi]f›Ïa€duty€to€warn€did€exist,€it€was€only€between€NGO€and€Montezuma€and€did€not€extend€toÏthe€plaintiffs."€€Downs€counters€that€NGOððs€duty€to€warn€extended€beyond€Montezuma€toÏinclude€all€foreseeable€users€and€consumers€of€the€odorant.€Ìà  àFor€a€duty€to€attach€under€the€Indiana€Product€Liability€Act,€the€seller€does€not€haveÏto€be€in€privity€with€the€user€or€consumer.€€òòInd.€Codeóó€ðð€33„1„1.5„3(b)(2).€€Rather,€the€dutyÐ ˆØ Ðto€warn€extends€to€"any€user€or€consumer"׃×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú9Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€in€the€"class€of€persons€that€the€seller€shouldÐ €Ð Ðreasonably€foresee€as€being€subject€to€the€harm€caused€by€the€defective€condition."€€òòInd.Ð xÈ ÐCodeóó€ðððð€33„1„1.5„3(a),(b).€€Stated€differently,€the€manufacturer,€seller€or€distributor€of€aÐ pÀ Ðproduct€has€a€duty€to€warn€those€persons€it€should€reasonably€foresee€would€be€likely€to€useÏits€product€or€who€are€likely€to€come€into€contact€with€the€danger€inherent€in€the€productððsÏuse.€€œ63òòa›€Am.€Jur€2óód,€òòProducts€Liabilityóó€ðð€1188€(annotations€omitted).€€This€duty€to€warnÐ X"¨ Ðfollows€from€the€manufacturerððs€duty€to€anticipate€the€foreseeable€uses€of€its€product,€andÏembodies€the€notion€that€the€warning€must€be€sufficient€to€adequately€protect€any€and€allÐ H&˜!" Ðforeseeable€users€from€a€productððs€latent€dangers.€€òòIdóó.€€The€manufacturer€has€a€duty€to€warnÐ ° Ðthe€ultimate€user€of€a€product€when€the€ultimate€user€is€a€party€the€manufacturer€shouldÏexpect€to€use€the€product.€€òòSeeóó€òòHoffmanóó,€448€N.E.2d€at€282.€€€Ð  ð Ðà  àThe€Downs€family€is€among€the€class€of€persons€that€NGO€could€have€reasonablyÏforeseen€as€being€subject€to€the€dangers€associated€with€odor€fade.€€Natural€gas€consumersÏare€the€intended€beneficiaries€of€an€odorantððs€cautionary€warning.€€It€stands€to€reason,€then,Ïthat€the€Act€serves€to€protect€those€consumers€if€the€manufacturer€fails€to€provide€adequateÏwarnings€or€if€the€product€fails€to€perform€as€intended.€€Thus,€we€conclude€that€NGOððs€dutyÏto€warn€extended€to€Downs.Ìà@ª ª ìàò òB.€€The€"Sophisticated€Intermediary"€Defenseó óˆÐ h¸ Ðà  àNGO€contends€that€its€duty€to€warn€was€satisfied€even€though€the€Downs€did€notÏreceive€any€warnings€about€odor€fade.€€Specifically,€NGO€argues€that€because€MontezumaÏis€a€"sophisticated€intermediary,"€NGOððs€duty€to€warn€the€Downs€was€discharged.׃×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú10Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€€€Ð X¨ Ðà  àAs€we€have€already€stated,€warnings€generally€must€be€given€to€the€ultimate€user€orÏconsumer.€€òòSeeóó€òòDole€Food€v.€North€Carolina€Foam€Indus.€Inc.óó,€935€P.2d€876,€880€(Ariz.Ð H ˜ ÐApp.€1996).€€Consequently,€the€duty€to€warn€is€non„delegable.€€òòJarrellóó,€528€N.E.2d€at€1164.€Ð @" ÐHowever,€courts€have€articulated€several€exceptions€which€permit€delegation€of€the€duty€toÏwarn€or€which€limit€the€general€obligation€of€a€distributor€to€supply€warnings€to€the€ultimateÏuser€or€consumer.€€òòSeeóó€òòDonahue€v.€Phillips€Petroleum€Co.óó,€866€F.2d€1008,1012€(8th€Cir.Ð  ð Ð1989).€€Those€exceptions€are€based,€in€large€part,€on€the€Restatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€388Ï(1965)׃×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú11Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€which€provides€in€relevant€part:Ð  à ÐÓÓà8  àGiving€to€the€third€person€through€whom€the€chattel€is€supplied€all€theÏinformation€necessary€to€its€safe€use€is€not€in€all€cases€sufficient€to€relieve€theÏsupplier€from€liability.€€It€is€merely€a€means€by€which€this€information€is€to€beÏconveyed€to€those€who€are€to€use€the€chattel.€€The€question€remains€whetherÏthis€method€gives€a€reasonable€assurance€that€the€information€will€reach€thoseÏwhose€safety€depends€upon€their€having€it.€€All€sorts€of€chattels€may€beÏsupplied€for€the€use€of€others,€through€all€sorts€of€third€persons€under€anÏinfinite€variety€of€circumstances.€€This€being€true,€it€is€obviously€impossibleÏto€state€in€advance€any€set€of€rules€which€will€automatically€determine€in€allÏcases€whether€one€supplying€a€chattel€for€the€use€of€others€through€a€thirdÏperson€has€satisfied€his€duty€to€those€who€are€to€use€the€chattel€by€informingÏthe€third€person€of€the€dangerous€character€of€the€chattel,€or€of€the€precautionsÏwhich€must€be€exercised€in€using€it€in€order€to€make€its€use€safe.€€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓÓRestatement€(Second)€of€Torts€ðð€388€cmt.€n.Ìà  àThe€duty€to€warn€stems€from€the€view€that€a€product€manufacturer€should€haveÏsuperior€knowledge€of€its€product.€€63òòa€Am.€Jur€2óód,€òòProducts€Liabilityóó€ðð€1195€(citingÐ @  ÐòòFeatherall€v.€Firestone€Tire€&€Rubber€Co.óó,€252€S.E.2d€358,€366€(Va.€1979).€€However,€underÐ 8"ˆ Ðthe€"sophisticated€user"€exception,€there€is€no€duty€to€warn€when€the€dangers€posed€by€theÏâ âproduct€are€already€known€to€the€user.€€òòIdóó.€€That€exception€has€been€extended€to€limit€theÐ (&x!" Ðduty€to€warn€the€ultimate€user€when€the€product€is€sold€to€a€"knowledgeable"€orÏ"sophisticated€intermediary."€€òòIdóó.€€€€Ð ¨ø Ðâ âà  àTo€determine€whether€a€manufacturer€has€satisfied€its€duty€to€warn€by€relying€uponÏa€sophisticated€intermediary,€courts€should€consider€the€following€factors:ÌÓÓà8  à[œT]he›€likelihood€or€unlikelihood€that€harm€will€occur€if€the€[intermediary]€doesÏnot€pass€on€the€warning€to€the€ultimate€user,€the€trivial€nature€of€the€probableÏharm,€the€probability€or€improbability€that€the€particular€[intermediary]€willÏnot€pass€on€the€warning€and€the€ease€or€burden€of€the€giving€of€the€warning€byÏthe€manufacturer€to€the€ultimate€user.€Ð Ð Ð  ÐÌÓžhÓòòDole€Foodóó,€935€P.2d€at€881€(quoting€òòShell€Oil€Co.€v.€Gutierrezóó,€581€P.2d€271,€278€(Ariz.Ð xÈ  ÐApp.€1978));€€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòJarrellóó,€528€N.E.2d€at€1164;€63òòaóó€òòAm.€Juróó.€2d,€òòProducts€Liabilityóó€ððÐ pÀ Ð1193.ñÉ.ñ׃×ñÉ.ññÉ.ñ׃I×ñÉ.ñÝ ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú12Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Further,€for€the€exception€to€apply,€the€intermediary€must€have€knowledge€orÐ h¸ Ðsophistication€equal€to€that€of€the€manufacturer€or€supplier,€and€the€manufacturer€must€beÏable€to€rely€reasonably€on€the€intñË.ññÊ.ñ׃Kˆ ×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×ñÊ.ññË.ñermediary€to€warn€the€ultimate€consumer.€€63òòa€Am.€Jur.€2óód,Ð X¨ ÐòòProducts€Liabilityóó€ðð€1195€(annotations€omitted).€€Reliance€is€only€reasonable€if€theÐ P  Ðâ âintermediary€knows€or€should€know€of€the€productððs€dangers.€€òòIdóó.€€Actual€or€constructiveÐ H˜ Ðknowledge€may€arise€where€either€the€supplier€has€provided€an€adequate€explicit€warning€ofÏsuch€dangers€or€information€of€the€productððs€dangers€is€available€in€the€public€domain.׃ ×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú13Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Р¨ø Ðâ âà  àWhether€a€manufacturer€has€discharged€its€duty€under€the€sophisticated€intermediaryÏdoctrine€is€almost€always€a€question€for€the€trier€of€fact.€€òòSeeóó€òòDole€Foodóó,€935€P.2d€at€881.€Ð ˜ è ÐThe€manufacturerððs€reliance€on€the€intermediaryððs€alleged€sophistication€may€be€more€or€lessÏreasonable€given€the€productððs€nature,€complexity€and€associated€dangers,€the€likelihood€thatÏthe€intermediary€will€communicate€warnings€to€the€ultimate€consumer,€the€dangers€posed€toÏthe€ultimate€consumer€by€an€inadequate€or€nonexistent€warning,€and€the€feasibility€ofÏrequiring€the€manufacturer€to€directly€warn€the€productððs€ultimate€consumers.€€Ultimately,Ïthose€factors€must€be€balanced€by€the€trier€of€fact.Ìà  àHere,€the€designated€evidence€establishes€that€Montezuma,€along€with€the€natural€gasÏindustry€as€a€whole,€is€generally€aware€of€the€dangers€associated€with€odor€fade.œ×ƒ×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú14Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€However,Ð X¨ Ðthat€awareness€does€not€necessarily€discharge€NGOððs€duty€to€œwarnñÎ.ñ.ñÎ.ñ›œñÏ.ñ,ñÏ.ñ›€and€we€decline€to€adoptÏan€"everybody€knows"€or€common€knowledge€exception€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Downs€hasÏpresented€evidence€that€NGO€did€not€specifically€inform€Montezuma€of€the€factors€that€mayÏexacerbate€odor€fade€or€of€the€steps€that€can€be€taken€to€limit€its€effects.׃ h×Ý ƒ"#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú15Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€fact,€as€DownsÐ 8"ˆ Ðemphasizes,€the€record€establishes€that€NGO€failed€to€provide€Montezuma€with€any€warningÏor€instruction€and€further€failed€to€insure€that€Montezuma€would€inform€its€natural€gasÏconsumers€about€odor€fade.€€The€parties€further€dispute€whether€it€would€be€reasonable€orÏfeasible€to€require€NGO€to€warn€natural€gas€consumers€directly.€€Given€these€many€issues,Ïwe€cannot€conclude€as€a€matter€of€law€that€NGO€has€satisfied,€under€the€sophisticatedÏintermediary€exception,€its€duty€to€warn€the€Downs.Ì€€à@%ìàò òCONCLUSIONó óˆÐ €Ð  Ðà  àIn€sum,€we€conclude,€as€a€matter€of€law,€that€NGO€had€a€duty€to€warn€natural€gasÏusers€and€consumers€about€odor€fade€and€that€the€failure€to€satisfy€that€duty€renders€theÏodorant€defective€and€unreasonably€dangerous.€€Whether€NGO€satisfied€its€duty€through€theÏsophisticated€intermediary€exception€must€be€determined€by€the€trier€of€fact.€€Similarly,Ïwhether€odor€fade€proximately€caused€the€Downsðð€injuries€is€a€question€that€can€only€beÏresolved€at€trial.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€partial€denial€of€summary€judgmentÏagainst€NGO,€reverse€the€courtððs€partial€grant€of€summary€judgment€to€the€extent€that€itÏlimited€NGOððs€duty€to€warn€to€Montezuma€and€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedingsÏconsistent€with€this€opinion.€Ìà  àAffirmed€in€part,€reversed€in€part€and€remanded.ÌROBERTSON,€J.,€and€RILEY,€J.,€concur.Ì