In Dole Food Co. v. N. Carolina Foam Indus., Inc., 188 Ariz. 298, 305, 935 P.2d 876, 883 (App. 1996), the court explained that the effect of the heeding presumption in that case was "to take the case to the jury, even in the face of the manufacturer's contrary evidence" that an adequate warning would not have been heeded. 188 Ariz. at 306, 935 P.2d at 884. Additionally, the court stated that "the presumption shifts the burden of proof to the manufacturer, and it is up to the jury to determine whether the burden has been satisfied." Id. The trial court relied on Dole Food in instructing the jury on the heeding presumption.