Toxic Tort/Product Liability Alert
April 2008
Contact:
Chris M. Temple
+1.412.355.6343
chris.temple@klgates.com
K&L Gates comprises approximately 1,500
lawyers in 24 offices located in North
America, Europe and Asia, and represents
capital markets participants, entrepreneurs,
growth and middle market companies,
leading FORTUNE 100 and FTSE 100
global corporations and public sector
entities. For more information, please visit
www.klgates.com.
www.klgates.com
Supreme Court of California Recognizes the
“Sophisticated User” Defense
Johnson v. American Standard, No. S139184
(Cal. Apr. 3, 2008)
As a matter of first impression, on April 3, 2008, a unanimous Supreme Court of California
adopted the “sophisticated user” defense in product liability cases. Under this defense, a
manufacturer is absolved of any duty to warn of the dangers associated with its product where
the user of the product knows or should have known of the product’s hazards. Accordingly,
failure-to-warn defendants may now reach beyond knowledge to which a plaintiff admits,
and argue that there is no duty to warn one who should have known of the dangers associated
with a particular product.
Factual Background
Johnson involved an experienced, certified HVAC technician, William Johnson, who repaired
air-conditioning systems and who alleged that he was exposed to phosgene gas related to the
decomposition of a refrigerant. The risk was one which Mr. Johnson was either aware of, or
should have been aware of, from his employer and readily available safety regulations.
In 2003, Mr. Johnson filed suit against various chemical manufacturers, chemical suppliers,
and manufacturers of air-conditioning equipment, alleging that his exposure to phosgene
gas caused him to develop pulmonary fibrosis. He claimed, among other things, that the
defendants were both negligent and strictly liable for failing to warn him of the hazards
associated with their products.
A manufacturer of the evaporator that contained the refrigerant at issue moved for summary
judgment, arguing that it had no duty to warn Mr. Johnson of the dangers of refrigerant/
phosgene exposure, because Mr. Johnson, and the group of trained professionals to which
he belonged, was already aware of those risks. Both the trial court and Court of Appeal
agreed.
Supreme Court of California’s Recognition of the Defense
The California Supreme Court held unequivocally that the sophisticated user defense applies
in California. According to the Court, the “sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers
from their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products’
potential hazards.” Under the defense, “sophisticated users need not be warned about dangers
of which they are already aware or should be aware.” In essence, a sophisticated user is
charged with knowledge of a product’s risks, and the manufacturer’s failure to warn cannot
be “the legal cause of any harm that product may cause.”
There are three noteworthy aspects to this defense, as stated by the Supreme Court in
Johnson.
Toxic Tort/Product Liability Alert
• First, the defense applies in both strict liability and
negligent failure-to-warn cases.
• S econd, the defense is objective. Even if the
sophisticated user did not actually know of the
dangers associated with the product, if the user
should have known, then the defense applies.
• T hird, the relevant time for determining “user
sophistication” is when the plaintiff is injured, as
opposed to when the product was manufactured.
Application of Johnson to Third-Party
Sophisticated Users
While Johnson involved a plaintiff who was a
sophisticated user of a product, the Supreme Court
recognized that the doctrine applies also to situations
where products are sold to a third-party sophisticated
intermediary, such as the plaintiff’s employer. In fact,
the Supreme Court, in discussing the development of
the defense, relied upon In re Related Asbestos Cases,
543 F. Supp. 1142 (N.D. Cal. 1982), a case where the
court found that manufacturers of asbestos-containing
products had no duty to warn of dangers allegedly
associated with their products, because the plaintiff’s
employer—the United States Navy—had knowledge
regarding the dangers of asbestos at least equal to that
of the equipment manufacturers.
Conclusion
The Johnson opinion provides a positive step in the
right direction regarding manufacturers’ ability to
defend failure-to-warn claims in California, although
California continues to remain a problematic
jurisdiction for product liability defendants.
K&L Gates comprises multiple affiliated partnerships: a limited liability partnership with the full name Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP
qualified in Delaware and maintaining offices throughout the U.S., in Berlin, and in Beijing (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP Beijing
Representative Office); a limited liability partnership (also named Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP) incorporated in England and
maintaining our London office; a Taiwan general partnership (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis - Taiwan Commercial Law Offices) which
practices from our Taipei office; and a Hong Kong general partnership (Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, Solicitors) which practices from
our Hong Kong office. K&L Gates maintains appropriate registrations in the jurisdictions in which its offices are located. A list of the partners in
each entity is available for inspection at any K&L Gates office.
This publication/newsletter is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used
or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
Data Protection Act 1998—We may contact you from time to time with information on Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP seminars and
with our regular newsletters, which may be of interest to you. We will not provide your details to any third parties. Please e-mail london@klgates.
com if you would prefer not to receive this information.
©1996-2008 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis LLP. All Rights Reserved.
April 2008 | 2