As Paul, a bartender, was removing the restraining wire from a bottle of champagne produced and bottled by Winery, Inc., the plastic stopper suddenly shot out of the bottle. The stopper struck and injured Paul's eye. Paul had opened other bottles of champagne, and occasionally the stoppers had shot out with great force, but Paul had not been injured.Paul has brought an action against Winery, Inc., alleging that the bottle that caused his injury was defective and unreasonably dangerous because its label did not warn that the stopper might suddenly shoot out during opening. The state has merged contributory negligence and unreasonable assumption of risk into a pure comparative fault system that is applied in strict products liability actions. If the jury finds that the bottle was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it lacked a warning, will Paul recover a judgment in his favor? 
No, if the jury finds that a legally sufficient warning would not have prevented Paul's injury.  No, if a reasonable bartender would have realized that a stopper could eject from the bottle and hit his eye.  Yes, with damages reduced by the percentage of any contributory fault on Paul's part.  Yes, with no reduction in damages, because foreseeable lack of caution is the reason for requiring a warning. 