(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform them of its dangerous condition or of the facts which make it likely to be dangerous. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 388 (1965) (emphasis added), quoted with approval in Eddleman v. Scalco, 484 S.W.2d 122, 126 (Tex.Civ.App. 1972) (writ ref'd n. r. e.); Big Three Welding Equip. Co., 399 S.W.2d 912, 916 (Tex.Civ.App. 1966) (writ ref'd n. r. e.); Kirby Lumber Corp. v. Murphy, 271 S.W.2d 672, 678 (Tex.Civ.App. 1954). Comment k to this provision adds that warning of a product's defects is unnecessary where the dangerous condition is one "which a mere casual looking over will disclose" or where the supplier of the product has "reason to believe that those who will use it will have such special experience as will enable them to perceive the danger . . . ."
(Emphasis added.) Under Texas law, the theory of negligent failure to warn is applied as stated in Section 388 of The Restatement (Second) of Torts. Olivarez v. Broadway Hardware, Inc., 564 S.W.2d 195, 201 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1978, writ ref. n.r.e.); Eddleman v. Scalco, 484 S.W.2d 122, 126 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1972, writ ref. n.r.e.). Section 388 states as follows:
The rule is that the trial court may not refuse to submit an issue because of the factual insufficiency of the evidence to support an answer thereto. Wenzel v. Rollins Motor Co., 598 S.W.2d 895, 902 (Tex.Civ.App. — El Paso 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Licht, 544 S.W.2d 442 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1976, no writ); Eddleman v. Scalco, 484 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1972, writ ref'd n.r.e.). If there is some evidence raising an issue, the trial court is required to submit it even though the evidence may be insufficient to support an affirmative answer.
Likewise, a warning may be inadequate when the magnitude of the potential harm requires more. For example, in Johnson v. Husky Inds. ( 536 F.2d 645), a caution to use charcoal only in ventilated areas was inadequate to warn of the risk of burning charcoal indoors. In Eddleman v. Scalco ( 484 S.W.2d 122 [Tex]), the word "flammable" affixed to a product was deemed inadequate when the real danger of the product was its explosive characteristics. In Chappuis v. Sears, Roebuck Co. ( 358 So.2d 926 [La]), a warning that a hammer face may chip if struck against another hammer, hardened nails or other hard objects, possibly resulting in eye or other bodily injury was insufficient without an additional warning that the hammer, once chipped, must be discarded.
The rule is that the trial court may not refuse to submit an issue because of the factual insufficiency of the evidence to support an answer thereto. See generally, Wenzel v. Rollins Motor Co., 598 S.W.2d 895, 902 (Tex.Civ.App.-El Paso 1980, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Eddleman v. Scalco, 484 S.W.2d 122, 124 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1972, writ ref'd n. r. e.); Norvell Service Co. v. Spell, 288 S.W.2d 133, 144-145 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1955 writ ref'd n. r. e.), and cases therein cited. See also, Harville v. Siebenlist, 582 S.W.2d 621, 623-624 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1979), rev'd on other grounds, 596 S.W.2d 113 (Tex. 1980).
We hold that HDE's general warning failed to convey to Pearson the specific danger and was therefore inadequate. Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products, 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973); Rumsey v. Freeway Manor Minimax, 423 S.W.2d 387 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (1st Dist.) 1968, no writ); Eddleman v. Scalco, 484 S.W.2d 122 (Tex.Civ.App. Beaumont 1922, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The jury's findings that HDE did not fail to adequately warn Connie Pearson of the danger that the fuse or switch may be live in the open position is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.