Skip Wright, a firefighter with 13 years' experience, was operating a Stang deck gun attached to a fire engine while extinguishing a fire. During the course of the fire, the water reaching the water cannon had to be routed from the hydrant through the truck's water pump. The extreme pressure created an unusual force, called a "water hammer," where the force of the water is four to six times greater than normal, detaching the water cannon from the truck and throwing Wright into the air. He landed on the ground with the water cannon falling on top of him. Wright brought suit under a failure-to-warn theory. Stang argued that anyone familiar with fire apparatus would recognize the risk of a water hammer. Stang did not produce evidence to the court that it had provided any warnings regarding the potential hazards of a water hammer. How should the court resolve this dispute?