|
JOHNSON VS. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC.
California Supreme Court
Cite: 2008 DJDAR 4701
On April 4, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., pertaining to whether California should adopt the “sophisticated user” doctrine and defense to negate a manufacturer’s duty to warn of dangers to their product. (Johnson v. American Standard, Inc., 2008 DJDAR 4701). Under Johnson, manufacturers may use the “sophisticated user” defense to defeat all causes of action for defendant manufacturer’s alleged failure to warn in cases where the plaintiff knew or should have known of the product’s hazards. See generally, Id. The Johnson court also held the “sophisticated user” defense is applicable in both negligence and strict liability cases. Id.
In Johnson, plaintiff was an HVAC technician, certified with the highest certification an HVAC technician can receive. Id. at 4701. Plaintiff alleged that while working on an air conditioning system, he was exposed to a dangerous gas which emits after a refrigerant is exposed to high heat. Id. Defendant manufacturer denied liability in part because plaintiff, as a HVAC technician, should have known and in fact did know of the dangers associated with gases used in large air conditioning systems. Id. at 4702. The California Supreme Court agreed and thus adopted the “sophisticated user” defense as an exception to a defendant manufacturer’s duty to warn. See generally, Id.
Under Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., manufacturers are strictly liable for injuries caused by their failure to warn consumers about hazards known to the scientific community at the time the product was manufactured and distributed. Id. at 4702 (citing Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 987, 1003). However, under the “sophisticated user” defense, the Johnson court utilized the “Should Have Known” standard. Id. at 4705. Under this standard, sophisticated users do not need to be warned about dangers which they already know or should have known. Id. It is assumed that sophisticated users already know of a particular product’s dangers and therefore failure to provide warnings cannot be the proximate cause of a resulting injury from those harms. Id.
To determine when the “sophisticated user” defense can be used, the Johnson court stated it applies “when the sophisticated user is injured and knew or should have known of the risk.” Id. at 4707. The court noted that the legal duty must be based on objective standards and not by examining actual knowledge on a case-by-case manner which would cause an unfair burden on the manufacturer. Id. at 4705-4707. Furthermore, the sophisticated user’s knowledge will be measured from the time of the plaintiff’s injury and not the date the product was manufactured. Id.
Should you have any questions about the contents of this correspondence, or would like more information regarding the recent case law described above, please feel free to contact us at our website: www.sollp.com
|
