In Gray v. Badger Mining Corp. (Minn. 2004) 676 N.W.2d 268, a foundry worker asserted products liability claims based on a failure to warn against a silica sand supplier, alleging that he contracted silicosis due to exposure to the supplier's sand, which he had used in making casting molds in the foundry. (Gray, supra, 676 N.W.2d at pp. 271-272.) After an appellate court determined that the worker's claims failed because the foundry was a sophisticated purchaser of sand, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, concluding that there were triable issues regarding the application of "bulk sales" and "sophisticated purchaser" doctrines. (See id. at pp. 275-280.) Regarding these doctrines, the court noted that the supplier had provided only inadequate warnings regarding the hazards of its sand to the foundry, and that there was no evidence the supplier had reason to believe the foundry would provide adequate warnings to its workers. (Ibid.) The court also rejected application of the component parts doctrine, stating: "Although sand is a raw material and is not inherently dangerous, it is nevertheless dangerous when used in a foundry process. The supplier specifically develops sand for foundry use and has conceded that it understands the manner in which silica is used in the foundry process. More importantly, the sand is not used as a component of a finished product, and it is the sand--not the finished product--that is dangerous to foundry workers." (Gray, supra, 676 N.W.2d at p. 281.)