water that came out of the tap could be as much as 30 degrees higher than the temperature indicated on the temperature gauge, a condition known as “stacking.” Defendant’s argue for summary judgment on this claim because the risk of injury was open and obvious, the user was already aware of the dangers associated with hot water, and the lack of warnings was not the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injury. A manufacturer is subject to lia facturer’s warnings is a jury question, in an appropriate case the court can decide as a matter of law that there is no duty to warn. Id. at 65, 427 N.Y.S.2d 1009. It must also be established that the alleged failure to warn is the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. Cramer v. Toledo Scale Co., Inc., 158 A.D.2d 966, 551 N.Y.S.2d 718 (4th Dep’t.1990) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, where a warning would not have
recognizing under illinois law that pharmaceutical manufacturer has duty to warn of any dangers associated with offlabel use of product if such dangers were reasonably known holding that an eight yearold boy was not a reasonably foreseeable user of commercial meat grinder and thus manufacturer had no duty to provide a warning designed to alert minor child of dangers inherent in products use recognizing inherent dangers of thirdpartypayer arrangement but finding defendant failed to prove that those dangers ripened into an actual conflict of interest holding a manufacturer had no postsale duty to warn of dangers associated with an auger because numerous hodder factors were not present holding that the determination of whether a products dangers are obvious is made from the perspective of an ordinary user of the product rather than an ordinary person who is unfamiliar with the product