Adam bought an electric staple gun manufactured by BaBoom, Inc. He tested it by putting it up against his arm and firing a staple. The staple punctured an artery and Adam suffered severe blood loss. He sued BaBoom, Inc. under products liability law arguing that the staple gun should have carried a warning against using it on skin or flesh. Which of the following most accurately states the position in relation to BaBoom's liability for failing to warn of the danger posed by the staple gun?
1) BaBoom, Inc. should have put a warning on the staple gun because it was foreseeable that someone might fail to recognize an open and obvious danger
2) BaBoom, Inc. should not be held liable because Adam misused the staple gun
3) BaBoom, Inc. should have included a warning on the staple gun, but Adam should have known better than to put it against his arm
4) BaBoom, Inc. should not be held liable because the danger of using the staple gun on skin or flesh was not reasonably foreseeable