References in periodicals archive ?
Instead, the defense simply first introduces evidence on the issue of whether the plaintiff read and heeded instead of the plaintiff introducing evidence.
Where warning is given, the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe if it is followed, is not in defective condition, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.
Thus, product liability plaintiffs in New Jersey are not required to prove that they would have heeded a warning, unless the manufacturer successfully rebuts the presumption.
Soft Sheen Products, (24) the District of Columbia Court of Appeals also justified the heeding presumption on a public policy rationale, holding that requiring plaintiffs to prove that had an adequate warning been given, they would have read and heeded it, "would impose an impossible burden on the plaintiff, and would often prevent his recovery because of pure speculation on the part of the jury." The court went on to conclude that the plaintiff met her burden of proof on causation when she suffered second-degree burns from a hair perm.