In Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, 493 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1973) the Court provided an extensive analysis of Texas product liability law as it is to be applied in suits brought against manufacturers of asbestos products. In Borel, this Court said: "the jury was entitled to find that the danger to Borel and other insulation workers from inhaling asbestos dust was foreseeable to the defendants at the time the products causing Borel's injuries were sold," 493 F.2d at 1093. The Court did not say that the jury was compelled, as a matter of law to reach this result, or that it could not have reached another result. On the issue of plaintiff Borel's possible voluntary assumption of risk, this Court stated "we cannot say that, as a matter of law, the danger (of asbestos inhalation) was sufficiently obvious to asbestos installation workers to relieve the defendants of the duty to warn." Id. The Court did not say that, as a matter of law, the danger of asbestos inhalation was so hidden from every asbestos worker in every situation as to create a duty to warn on the part of all asbestos manufacturers. On rehearing, the Court held that although some asbestos products used by plaintiff Borel contained warnings, there was sufficient evidence that the warnings were inadequate to inform workers of the actual dangers posed by asbestos inhalation to justify submission of that issue to the jury. 493 F.2d at 1105. The Court did not state that every jury would be required, as a matter of law, to find such warnings inadequate. In sum, the Court held in Borel only that the Borel jury, on the evidence presented to it, could have found that asbestos products unaccompanied by adequate warnings were unreasonably dangerous.