In Kenser v. Premium Nail Concepts, Inc., No. 13-0499 (Mont. Oct. 21, 2014), the Montana Supreme Court heard an appeal by plaintiff from defendant’s verdict in a case alleging that the plaintiff suffered injury by being exposed to defendant’s liquid acrylic nail product. Despite granting plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that her use of the product was not unreasonable or unforeseeable, the trial court allowed the defendant to offer evidence at trial over plaintiff’s objection that its product was “safe as used,” and refused to permit plaintiff to cross-examine defendant’s witnesses on the issue whether defendant and the nail care industry knew of the prevalence of skin contact among users of this product. The trial court had instructed the jury that the plaintiff did not misuse the product, but then defined the phrase “safe as used” for the jury as addressing the use of a specific ingredient in a product and not addressing how the consumer uses the product, thus confusing the jury as to the issue at hand. The Montana Supreme Court held that the trial court committed multiple errors, first, in permitting the defendant to adduce evidence of, and argue, its “safe as used” defense ground where the trial court already had determined there was no misuse; second, in prohibiting cross-examination by plaintiff on that very ground; and third, in providing a definition of “safe as used” that was unsupported by Montana law. For these reasons the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.