A more thorough explanation:

The heeding presumption is a legal inference or assumption that a product user would have followed a warning label had the product manufacturer provided one. It is a rebuttable presumption, meaning that the opposing party can attempt to overcome it with other evidence.

For example, if a person is injured while using a product that did not have a warning label, they may argue that the manufacturer should have provided one. The heeding presumption would assume that the injured person would have followed the warning label if it had been provided, and therefore the injury could have been prevented. However, the manufacturer could try to overcome this presumption by presenting evidence that the injured person had a history of not following warning labels.

The heeding presumption is often used in products liability cases, where a manufacturer may be held responsible for injuries caused by their product. By assuming that a warning label would have been followed, the burden of proof shifts to the manufacturer to prove otherwise.