What is the current state of the law on knowability of a manufacturer of a product that fails to warn?

We conclude that Vermeulen v. Superior Court, supra, 204 Cal.App.3d 1192, 251 Cal.Rptr. 805, states the correct rule. The California courts, either expressly or by implication, have to date required knowledge, actual or constructive, of potential risk or danger before imposing strict liability for a failure to warn. The state of the art may be relevant to the question of knowability and, for that reason, should be admissible in that context. Exclusion of state-of-the-art evidence, when the basis of liability is a failure to warn, would make a manufacturer the virtual insurer of its product's safe use, a result that is not consonant with established principles underlying strict liability.