Legal Definitions - heeding presumption

Heeding presumption is a legal principle that assumes an individual has paid attention to and understood a warning, instruction, or piece of information, once it has been proven that the warning, instruction, or information was properly provided or made accessible to them. This presumption shifts the burden of proof: the party who provided the information does not need to initially prove it was heeded. Instead, the party claiming they did not heed it must present evidence to overcome this assumption.

Here are some examples illustrating the heeding presumption:

• Product Warning Label: Imagine a consumer is injured while using a new kitchen appliance. The appliance's manufacturer had placed a clear, prominent warning label on the device itself, advising users to keep their hands clear of moving parts during operation. In a subsequent lawsuit, the manufacturer could invoke the heeding presumption. They would argue that because the warning label was clearly visible and properly affixed, it should be presumed the consumer saw, read, and understood the instruction. The consumer would then need to present evidence to rebut this presumption, perhaps by showing the label was obscured, unreadable due to small print, or that they had a specific disability preventing them from understanding written warnings.

• Public Safety Signage: Consider a situation where a person slips and falls on a freshly mopped floor in a public building. A bright yellow "Wet Floor" sign was prominently displayed in the area where the incident occurred. The building management could rely on the heeding presumption. By placing a clear and visible "Wet Floor" sign, it is presumed that a reasonable person would have seen and heeded the warning to exercise caution. To succeed in a claim, the injured person would need to provide evidence that they did not heed the warning due to specific circumstances, such as the sign being poorly placed, obscured by an obstacle, or not visible from their direction of approach.

• Medical Instructions: A patient undergoes a minor outpatient surgical procedure and is given detailed written and verbal instructions by their doctor about post-operative care, including specific wound cleaning procedures and medication schedules. The patient later develops an infection and claims they were not properly informed about how to prevent it. The doctor could invoke the heeding presumption. Since the patient was provided with clear, comprehensive instructions, it is presumed they read, understood, and were capable of following them. The patient would then need to demonstrate why they did not heed the instructions, perhaps by arguing the instructions were ambiguous, contradictory, or that they had a language barrier that prevented comprehension despite the instructions being provided.