Failure to Warn as a Cause of Action in New York

When a person is injured while using a product, they may have the right to seek compensation from the manufacturer under various legal theories. One such cause of action under product liability is called failure to warn. This article aims to explain what failure to warn is and what conditions must be met to hold a manufacturer liable for injuries resulting from inadequate warnings.

What is Failure to Warn?

Failure to warn is a legal concept that allows a plaintiff to recover damages if they can prove that a manufacturer did not provide sufficient warnings about potential dangers associated with using their product. This cause of action can be invoked in both strict products liability and negligence cases.

Establishing Liability

For a plaintiff to recover under the failure to warn theory, they need to demonstrate three key elements: a duty to warn; foreseeable dangers; and proximate cause.

A. Duty to Warn

The first step is to establish that the manufacturer had a duty to warn users about potential dangers associated with the product’s use. This duty exists when the manufacturer knows or should have known about foreseeable risks related to the product.

B. Foreseeable Dangers

The plaintiff must prove that the danger resulting from the product’s use was foreseeable, and the manufacturer knew or should have known about these risks. It means that the risks were not hidden or completely unexpected.

C. Proximate Cause

Finally, the plaintiff must show that the failure to provide adequate warnings was the direct cause of their injuries. In other words, if the warnings had been proper, the injury could have been prevented.

Scope of the Duty to Warn

Manufacturers are required to warn against latent dangers that they knew or should have known could arise from foreseeable uses of their products. Additionally, they must also warn against dangers that could result from unintended uses, as long as those uses are reasonably foreseeable.

Exceptions to the Duty to Warn

However, manufacturers are not obligated to warn against hazards that are obviously dangerous or pose open and obvious risks. In such cases, where the risks are apparent and can be recognized using common sense, there is no duty to warn.

Balancing the Open and Obvious Defense

Determining whether a risk is open and obvious can be subjective and fact-specific. In close cases, it may be challenging to decide whether a particular risk should have been apparent to the user. Typically, this becomes a question for the jury to decide.

When evaluating failure to warn claims, the focus lies on three factors: the obviousness of the risk from the product’s actual use, the knowledge of the specific user, and whether the failure to warn directly led to the injury.

Burden of Proof

Ultimately, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove that the manufacturer’s failure to warn was the proximate cause of their injury. In other words, they must show that if proper warnings were given, the injury would not have occurred.

Conclusion

Failure to warn is a critical cause of action in product liability cases, holding manufacturers accountable for providing adequate warnings about their products’ potential dangers. To succeed in such claims, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the manufacturer had a duty to warn, that the dangers were foreseeable, and that the lack of proper warnings directly caused their injuries. By understanding failure to warn, consumers can protect their rights and seek compensation when necessary.

Find the Law

“A plaintiff may recover against a defendant under this theory where he or she establishes: (1) that a manufacturer has a duty to warn; (2) against dangers resulting from foreseeable uses about which it knew or should have known; and (3) that failure to do so was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.” Narvaez v. Wadsworth, 58 Misc. 3d 1229 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018).