More on the case about whether there is a duty to provide warnings in foreign languages

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a comment on a recent case in which the Federal District Court for Southern District of Florida held that a manufacturer has no duty to provide bilingual warnings. (Go here for my original comment.) I totally understand why the court decided the case the way it did and I think the result is justified. But, given the specific facts of the case, I think the exact opposite result would have been justified too. I don't think you see that often! The Abnormal Use Blog, which reported the case first, has now posted a follow-up to my comment here. We have the same reservations about imposing a broad duty to provide warnings in foreign languages.