He admitted he’d never read the instruction manual or the instructions affixed to the device;
He admitted that had he read them, he would have understood them and could have followed them;
He admitted that had he read them, he presumably would have followed them. Id. at *9.
With this backdrop, then, it is undisputed that [the cardiologist] used the [defibrillator] without regard to the instruction manual and the instruction label on the machine and, thus, [defendant’s] alleged failure to warn or alleged inadequate warning was not the proximate cause of [plaintiff’s] injuries.
We recognize that [the cardiologist’s] actions in this case were contrary to the instructions provided by [defendant], both on a label on the defibrillator and in its instruction manual. However, the fact that a particular use of a product is contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions does not, per se, establish that the use could not be anticipated.