Don't say we didn't warn you. California Supreme Court Adopts Sophisticated User Defense
April, 2008
The California Supreme Court recently published a unanimous opinion adopting an important affirmative defense in the law of products liability. The "sophisticated user" defense says that a manufacturer does not have to warn a sophisticated user of potential product dangers when the user is skilled. The case is Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., and was published on April 3, 2008.
A trained and certified heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) technician, plaintiff received a "universal" certification from the EPA after passing a five-part exam. Part of his job duties included "brazing" (welding) parts on HVAC systems. Certain air conditioning systems contain R-22, a refrigerant that can decompose into toxic gases when exposed to high heat. Exposure can cause health problems, but the danger of such exposure has been known for decades, and has been published in numerous forms used by employers as a required component of training and educating employees. The technician admitted receiving such forms, and was aware of them, as part of his training and employment.
After being exposed to toxic gases arising from welding lines that contained trace amounts of R-22, the technician claimed that the manufacturer of the air conditioning unit was required to provide an adequate warning regarding the danger of such exposure. The trial court determined the technician was a sophisticated user of HVAC equipment, should have known of the dangers, and taken adequate precautions to protect himself. The Court of Appeal agreed and affirmed the judgment on the sole ground that the sophisticated user defense applies in California.
The Supreme Court affirmed and adopted a "should have known" standard. Under the California sophisticated user defense, "the inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff knew, or should have known, of the particular risk of harm from the product giving rise to the injury."
The sophisticated user defense applies to claims of negligence and strict liability failure to warn. The defense is available in cases in which a particular danger will not be known or obvious to the general population, but is, or should be known, to a specific class of people, such as highly skilled or trained workers. The defense is a logical complement to the obvious danger rule, which was adopted many years ago by the Supreme Court.
The focus of the sophisticated user defense, according to the Supreme Court, is "whether the danger in question was so generally known within the trade or profession that a manufacturer should not have been expected to provide a warning specific to the group to which plaintiff belonged." Thus, whether a plaintiff alleges mere negligence, or a strict liability claim of failure to warn, "the sophisticated user's knowledge eliminates the manufacturer's need for a warning." The Court specified that "the relevant time for determining user sophistication...is when the sophisticated user is injured and knew or should have known of the risk."
Please contact your Bullivant attorney to discuss this case further, and whether it will apply to your particular industries and employees.