In Collins v. Hyster Co., 174 Ill. App. 3d 972, 529 N.E.2d 303, 124 Ill. Dec. 483 (1988), the plaintiff was injured on a forklift. The trial court struck certain allegations of negligence based upon a continuing duty to warn. The specific allegations are not detailed in the opinion. The court stated as follows: "The trial court's ruling is correct in that we have not discovered any authority in Illinois for extending the duty to warn beyond the time when the product left the manufacturer's control unless Hyster knew or should have known at that time that the product was defective. Here, there is no evidence that Hyster should have known the product was defective at the time it left Hyster's control of which it would have had a continuing duty to warn against in the event the hazard was discovered subsequent to the time it left the manufacturer's control. Certainly the law does not contemplate placing the onerous duty on manufacturers to subsequently warn all foreseeable users of products based on increased design or manufacture expertise that was not present at the time the product left its control." Collins, 174 Ill. App. 3d at 977, 529 N.E.2d at 306. Thus, in Collins, the court declined to impose a postsale duty to warn, but that ruling was not applied to circumstances in which the manufacturer knew that the product was defective when it left its control.