holding that the risk of ingesting hair oil was “obvious” where its label listed 11 “ingredients . . . which would be unfamiliar to the average product user” | stating that a defendant’s duty to warn in a products-liability action is governed by Chapter 29 of the Revised Judicature Act | stating that when reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) the trial court must consider the evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party | observing that tort reform legislation enacted in 1995 “displaced the common law” and now governs a manufacturer’s or seller’s duty to warn and does not require a manufacturer to warn of “possible” injuries that might occur or of “specific” injuries | “The rule must and should be that a court applies the statute as written.” | Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948(2) does not require that a warning address possible injuries that might occur where the facts of record require the conclusion that the risk of serious harm from the asserted condition is open and obvious.