Client Alert: California Supreme Court Adopts “Sophisticated User” Doctrine In Product Liability Failure To Warn Cases

On April 3, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in William Keith Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. et al., No. S139184, and adopted the “sophisticated user” doctrine as a defense to negate a manufacturer’s duty to warn of a product’s potential danger when the plaintiff has (or should have) advance knowledge of the product’s inherent hazards. The Court held that “the defense is specifically applied to plaintiffs who knew or should have known of the product’s hazards, and it acts as an exception to manufacturers’ general duty to warn consumers.” Significantly, the Court adopted a broad application of the “sophisticated user” defense and held that it applies to both negligence and strict liability causes of action.

Factual And Procedural Background

The plaintiff in the Johnson case was a trained and certified heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) technician who sued various chemical and equipment manufacturers and suppliers in Los Angeles County Superior Court for bodily injury he allegedly suffered as a result of exposure to hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant (R-22 refrigerant) and phosgene gas. Phosgene gas may cause various health problems and the undisputed facts were that manufacturers and HVAC technicians have generally known of the dangers this exposure could cause since as early as 1931. Moreover, it was undisputed that under federal law HVAC technicians must be certified by the EPA with universal certification, which is granted after an exam, and that most technicians have some kind of professional training.

Defendant moved for summary judgment on grounds that it had no duty to warn about the potential hazards of R-22 because it could assume that the group of trained professionals to which plaintiff belonged, and plaintiff himself, were aware of those risks. The court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the Appellate Court affirmed. more...