Mulhall v. Hannafin

1 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Heedless Heeding Presumptions – How New York Law Became a Morass

    Reed Smith LLPJames BeckOctober 9, 2015

    “Plaintiffs had the burden to show that had a different warning been given, this patient would not have used the product that caused her injury.” Mulhall v. Hannafin, 841 N.Y.S.2d 282, 287 (N.Y.A.D. 2007). In Reis v. Volvo Cars, Inc., 901 N.Y.S.2d 10 (N.Y.A.D. 2010), the court held that the plaintiff’s “failure to warn claims should have been dismissed because ... there is no proof in the record that [plaintiff] would have read and heeded a warning had one been given.”