where it has (1) reason to know that the product it markets is likely to be danger ous for the use for which it is supplied; (2) no reason to believe the user will realize its dangerous condition; and (3) fails to exercise reasonable care to inform the user of the facts which make the product dangerous. Kerr v. Koemm, 557 F.Supp. 283 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (citing Young v. Elmira Transit Mix, Inc., 52 A.D.2d 202, 383 N.Y.S.2d 729, 731 (4th Dep’t.1976)). This means that if the danger was sufficiently obvious — so apparent and so clearly within common knowledge— that it would be unreasonable to impose on the manufacturer a duty to warn, there is no liability for failure to warn the user. Lancaster Silo & Block Co. v. Northern Propane Gas Co., 75 A.D.2d 55, 427 N.Y.S.2d 1009 (4th Dep’t.1980) (<HOLDING>). While, in general, the reasonableness of a
holding that property owner has duty to keep real property in reasonably safe condition for invitees or to warn of any hazard holding that there is no necessity to warn a consumer already aware through common knowledge or learning of a specific hazard holding that no duty to warn exists when hazards are known through general knowledge recognizing common knowledge exception recognizing a common knowledge exception