Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): consumer. An explosion occurred and the distributors/manu facturers were sued. That court held that the distributors of bulk propane to a retailer had no independent duty to warn the ultimate consumer. Rather, the distributor had only a duty to insure that the retailer was knowledgeable regarding the dangers and was able to warn the ultimate buyers. Thus, a seller of bulk propane can delegate to the retailer its duty to warn the ultimate consumer. Furthermore, the bulk seller has no duty to warn the retailer of the dangers of a product if that retailer is already aware "through common knowledge or learning" of a specific hazard. Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 A.D.2d 55, 427 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (1980); Parkinson v. California Co., 255 F.2d 265 (10th Cir. 1958) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, respondent could rely on 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution (B) holding a manufacturer had no postsale duty to warn of dangers associated with an auger because numerous hodder factors were not present (C) recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known (D) holding manufacture had no duty to warn of the dangers of smoking because the dangers of cigarette smoking have long been known to the community (E) holding that manufacturer had no duty to warn its purchasers retailer and transporter of gas of dangers where those purchasers had operated a gas business for years were familiar with the trade journals and already knew the dangers
Output (English): holding that a general contractor owed no duty to an employee of a subcontractor to warn of dangers of electrocution