Alm v. Aluminum Co. of America

*383ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellant has raised issues in his motion for rehearing which require clarification and correction of the Court’s opinion filed January 3, 1985.

In discussing whether Alcoa owed a duty to warn Aim, the opinion states, “The bottler is the one possessing the adequate means to pass warnings on to consumers.” Aim contends that this statement is factually incorrect because the evidence shows that 7-Up, the parent soft drink corporation, has control over the beverage labels and not the bottler. Aim argues that Alcoa therefore owed a duty to warn 7-Up and that the evidence…