LAW OFFICES
OF
ANDREA LYNN RICE
A Professional Corporation
12100 Wilshire Boulevard
OF
ANDREA LYNN RICE
A Professional Corporation
12100 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 780
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone (310) 207-3717
Facsimile (310) 207-6785
Los Angeles Appeals Attorney
LIABILITY UPDATE
April 11, 2008
In Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R 4701, the California Supreme Court adopted the “sophisticated user” doctrine and defense which operates 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 further that the relevant time for determining user sophistication is when the sophistication user is injured and knew or should have known of the risk.
Plaintiff was a trained and certified heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) technician. Plaintiff sued various chemical manufacturers, chemical suppliers, and manufacturers of air conditioning equipment, including defendant American Standard, Inc. Plaintiff specifically alleged that he brazed refrigerant lines on an evaporator that defendant had manufactured in 1965 that contained R-22 refrigerant, creating and exposing him to phosgene gas and causing him to develop pulmonary fibrosis. The causes of action against defendant included negligence, strict liability failure to warn, strict liability design defect, and breach of implied warranties. In each cause of action, plaintiff’s theory was that defendant knew that servicing the evaporator would create harmful phosgene gas, but defendant failed to provide plaintiff with an adequate warning. (See Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 1002 (Anderson ).)
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it had no duty to warn about the risks of R-22 exposure because it could assume that the group of trained professionals to which plaintiff belonged, and plaintiff himself, were aware of those risks. The trial court granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed and held that because plaintiff’s theory was the same in all causes of action, i.e., product liability through the failure to warn, the sophisticated user defense should apply to plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed as well.
The Court pointed out that, generally speaking, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products. “. . . Anderson made it clear that ‘[w]hatever may be reasonable from the point of view of the manufacturer, the user of the product must be given the option either to refrain from using the product at all or to use it in such a way as to minimize the degree of danger.’ . . . Conversely, when a sufficient warning is given, ‘the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.’ (Rest.2d Torts, § 402A, com. j, p. 353.)”
The Court observed that the sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from “their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products’ potential hazards.” The defense, if successfully argued, acts as an affirmative defense to negate the manufacturer’s duty to warn. “Under the sophisticated user defense, sophisticated users need not be warned about dangers of which they are already aware or should be aware. . . . Because these sophisticated users are charged with knowing the particular product’s dangers, the failure to warn about those dangers is not the legal cause of any harm that product may cause. . . . The rationale supporting the defense is that ‘the failure to provide warnings about risks already known to a sophisticated purchaser usually is not a proximate cause of harm resulting from those risks suffered by the buyer’s employees or downstream purchasers.’ (Ibid.) This is because the user’s knowledge of the dangers is the equivalent of prior notice. . . .”
The Court explained that the sophisticated user defense evolved out of the Restatement Second of Torts, section 388 (section 388) and the obvious danger rule, an accepted principle and defense in California. The defense has been held to apply equally to strict liability and negligent failure to warn cases. The duty to warn is measured by what is generally known or should have been known to the class of sophisticated users, rather than by the individual plaintiff’s subjective knowledge.
The Court observed that section 388 provides that a supplier of goods is liable for physical harm the goods cause if the supplier knows, or should know, the items are likely to be dangerous, fails to reasonably warn of the danger, and “has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition.” Courts have interpreted section 388, subdivision (b), to mean that if the manufacturer reasonably believes the user will know or should know about a given product’s risk, the manufacturer need not warn that user of that risk. This is “especially [true] when the user is a professional who should be aware of the characteristics of the product.” (Strong v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co., Inc. (8th Cir.1981) 667 F.2d 682, 687.) “Other jurisdictions that have adopted the sophisticated user defense have cited section 388 and the obvious danger rule as a basis for doing so. . . . While this court has not expressly adopted a sophisticated user defense, it has adopted section 388 as law in California. (See Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. [(1973)] 9 Cal.3d [51] at p. 64.)” The Court further pointed out that California law also recognizes the obvious danger rule, which provides that there is no need to warn of known risks under either a negligence or strict liability theory.
. . . As the Court of Appeal reasoned, the sophisticated user defense simply recognizes the exception to the principle that consumers generally lack knowledge about certain products, for example, heavy industrial equipment, and hence the dangers associated with them are not obvious. For those individuals or members of professions who do know or should know about the product’s potential dangers, that is, sophisticated users, the dangers should be obvious, and the defense should apply. Just as a manufacturer need not warn ordinary consumers about generally known dangers, a manufacturer need not warn members of a trade or profession (sophisticated users) about dangers generally known to that trade or profession.
The Court acknowledged that, under the “should have known” standard, there will be some users who were actually unaware of the dangers. “However, the same could be said of the currently accepted obvious danger rule; obvious dangers are obvious to most, but are not obvious to absolutely everyone. The obvious danger rule is an objective test, and the courts do not inquire into the user’s subjective knowledge in such a case. . . . Thus, under the 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 Court also held that the relevant time for determining user sophistication for purposes of this exception to a manufacturer’s duty to warn is when the sophisticated user is injured and knew or should have known of the risk. (Crook v. Kaneb Pipe Line Operating Partnership (8th Cir.2000) 231 F.3d 1098, 1102.) “As the Court of Appeal pointed out, ‘[t]he sophisticated user defense will always be employed when a sophisticated user should have, but did not, know of the risk. Otherwise, the issue would be actual knowledge and causation.’ Therefore, the sophisticated user’s knowledge of the risk is measured from the time of the plaintiff’s injury, rather than from the date the product was manufactured. The timeline focuses on the general population of sophisticated users and conforms to the defense’s purpose to eliminate any duty to warn when the expected user population is generally aware of the risk at issue.”
----Andrea Lynn Rice
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone (310) 207-3717
Facsimile (310) 207-6785
Los Angeles Appeals Attorney
LIABILITY UPDATE
April 11, 2008
In Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. 2008 Daily Journal D.A.R 4701, the California Supreme Court adopted the “sophisticated user” doctrine and defense which operates 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 further that the relevant time for determining user sophistication is when the sophistication user is injured and knew or should have known of the risk.
Plaintiff was a trained and certified heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) technician. Plaintiff sued various chemical manufacturers, chemical suppliers, and manufacturers of air conditioning equipment, including defendant American Standard, Inc. Plaintiff specifically alleged that he brazed refrigerant lines on an evaporator that defendant had manufactured in 1965 that contained R-22 refrigerant, creating and exposing him to phosgene gas and causing him to develop pulmonary fibrosis. The causes of action against defendant included negligence, strict liability failure to warn, strict liability design defect, and breach of implied warranties. In each cause of action, plaintiff’s theory was that defendant knew that servicing the evaporator would create harmful phosgene gas, but defendant failed to provide plaintiff with an adequate warning. (See Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 1002 (Anderson ).)
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground, inter alia, that it had no duty to warn about the risks of R-22 exposure because it could assume that the group of trained professionals to which plaintiff belonged, and plaintiff himself, were aware of those risks. The trial court granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeal affirmed and held that because plaintiff’s theory was the same in all causes of action, i.e., product liability through the failure to warn, the sophisticated user defense should apply to plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed as well.
The Court pointed out that, generally speaking, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products. “. . . Anderson made it clear that ‘[w]hatever may be reasonable from the point of view of the manufacturer, the user of the product must be given the option either to refrain from using the product at all or to use it in such a way as to minimize the degree of danger.’ . . . Conversely, when a sufficient warning is given, ‘the seller may reasonably assume that it will be read and heeded; and a product bearing such a warning, which is safe for use if it is followed, is not in defective condition, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.’ (Rest.2d Torts, § 402A, com. j, p. 353.)”
The Court observed that the sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from “their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products’ potential hazards.” The defense, if successfully argued, acts as an affirmative defense to negate the manufacturer’s duty to warn. “Under the sophisticated user defense, sophisticated users need not be warned about dangers of which they are already aware or should be aware. . . . Because these sophisticated users are charged with knowing the particular product’s dangers, the failure to warn about those dangers is not the legal cause of any harm that product may cause. . . . The rationale supporting the defense is that ‘the failure to provide warnings about risks already known to a sophisticated purchaser usually is not a proximate cause of harm resulting from those risks suffered by the buyer’s employees or downstream purchasers.’ (Ibid.) This is because the user’s knowledge of the dangers is the equivalent of prior notice. . . .”
The Court explained that the sophisticated user defense evolved out of the Restatement Second of Torts, section 388 (section 388) and the obvious danger rule, an accepted principle and defense in California. The defense has been held to apply equally to strict liability and negligent failure to warn cases. The duty to warn is measured by what is generally known or should have been known to the class of sophisticated users, rather than by the individual plaintiff’s subjective knowledge.
The Court observed that section 388 provides that a supplier of goods is liable for physical harm the goods cause if the supplier knows, or should know, the items are likely to be dangerous, fails to reasonably warn of the danger, and “has no reason to believe that those for whose use the chattel is supplied will realize its dangerous condition.” Courts have interpreted section 388, subdivision (b), to mean that if the manufacturer reasonably believes the user will know or should know about a given product’s risk, the manufacturer need not warn that user of that risk. This is “especially [true] when the user is a professional who should be aware of the characteristics of the product.” (Strong v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co., Inc. (8th Cir.1981) 667 F.2d 682, 687.) “Other jurisdictions that have adopted the sophisticated user defense have cited section 388 and the obvious danger rule as a basis for doing so. . . . While this court has not expressly adopted a sophisticated user defense, it has adopted section 388 as law in California. (See Stevens v. Parke, Davis & Co. [(1973)] 9 Cal.3d [51] at p. 64.)” The Court further pointed out that California law also recognizes the obvious danger rule, which provides that there is no need to warn of known risks under either a negligence or strict liability theory.
. . . As the Court of Appeal reasoned, the sophisticated user defense simply recognizes the exception to the principle that consumers generally lack knowledge about certain products, for example, heavy industrial equipment, and hence the dangers associated with them are not obvious. For those individuals or members of professions who do know or should know about the product’s potential dangers, that is, sophisticated users, the dangers should be obvious, and the defense should apply. Just as a manufacturer need not warn ordinary consumers about generally known dangers, a manufacturer need not warn members of a trade or profession (sophisticated users) about dangers generally known to that trade or profession.
The Court acknowledged that, under the “should have known” standard, there will be some users who were actually unaware of the dangers. “However, the same could be said of the currently accepted obvious danger rule; obvious dangers are obvious to most, but are not obvious to absolutely everyone. The obvious danger rule is an objective test, and the courts do not inquire into the user’s subjective knowledge in such a case. . . . Thus, under the 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 Court also held that the relevant time for determining user sophistication for purposes of this exception to a manufacturer’s duty to warn is when the sophisticated user is injured and knew or should have known of the risk. (Crook v. Kaneb Pipe Line Operating Partnership (8th Cir.2000) 231 F.3d 1098, 1102.) “As the Court of Appeal pointed out, ‘[t]he sophisticated user defense will always be employed when a sophisticated user should have, but did not, know of the risk. Otherwise, the issue would be actual knowledge and causation.’ Therefore, the sophisticated user’s knowledge of the risk is measured from the time of the plaintiff’s injury, rather than from the date the product was manufactured. The timeline focuses on the general population of sophisticated users and conforms to the defense’s purpose to eliminate any duty to warn when the expected user population is generally aware of the risk at issue.”
----Andrea Lynn Rice
No comments:
Post a Comment