In the heavily anticipated decision of Johnson v. American Standard, which was issued April 3, 2008 (Opinion No. S139184), the California Supreme Court unanimously decided that the "sophisticated user doctrine" applies in California. According to the Johnson decision, a manufacturer now has no duty to warn "members of a trade or profession (sophisticated users) about dangers generally known to that trade or profession." This seminal decision changes products liability law in California and has widespread effects on manufacturers, insurers and trade associations alike.

The Sophisticated User Doctrine Applies in California

The Supreme Court's decision acknowledges that the sophisticated user doctrine has evolved out of the Restatement Second of Torts, section 388, which has long been the law in California. Comment k to Section 388 provides that a supplier is required to inform the users of the risk if the manufacturer has "no reason to believe that those who use it will have such special experiences as will enable them to perceive the danger." The Johnson decision acknowledges the well-accepted corollary 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 the risk."

The Court also recognized that the sophisticated user doctrine is a "natural outgrowth" of California's "obvious danger" rule, under which there is no duty to warn consumers of generally known risks or obvious dangers. For example, a manufacturer of knives has no duty to warn consumers that knives can cut, just as a manufacturer of sling shots has no duty to warn of the obvious danger posed by a slingshot. "Ever since David slew Goliath young and old alike have known that slingshots can be dangerous and deadly." Bojorquez v. House of Toys, Inc.62 Cal.App.3d 930, 933-934, 133 Cal.Rptr. 483 (1976)

The Doctrine Operates Where the Sophisticated User "Should Have Known"

A manufacturer need not warn members of a trade or profession (sophisticated users) about dangers generally known to that trade or profession, just as a manufacturer need not warn ordinary consumers about generally known dangers under Section 388 of the Restatement and the obvious danger rule. In its decision, the Court stated, "[I]ndividuals who represent that they are trained or are members of a sophisticated group of users are saying to the world that they possess the level of knowledge and skill associated with that class. If they do not actually possess that knowledge and skill, that fact should not give rise to liability on the part of the manufacturer." Thus, the defense operates on a "should have known" standard, and the user's subjective knowledge is immaterial.

The Doctrine Can Be Used As Defense in Both Negligence and Strict Liability Cases

Johnson's "should have known" standard applies in both negligence and strict liability contexts. The doctrine merely asks whether, at the time of the plaintiff's injury, "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 to the specific group to which the plaintiff belonged." If so, there is no duty to warn.

The Doctrine is Likely to Have Widespread Application

Johnson involved an HVAC technician, who claimed that he was injured by inhaling toxic phosgene gas, created while he was brazing (a form of welding) an evaporator manufactured by American Standard. The Supreme Court held that Johnson fell within a category of sophisticated users, thus American Standard had no duty to warn under the sophisticated user doctrine.

Johnson was a "sophisticated user" because American Standard could expect that certified HVAC technicians, such as Johnson, know of the dangers of brazing refrigerant lines. HVAC technicians have special training in Johnson's case, one year of study in HVAC systems at ITT Technical institute. The Environmental Protection Agency requires all HVAC technicians to pass an exam and obtain a "universal" certificate to work on commercial HVAC equipment. Johnson passed this exam and had "universal" certification. He also read the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for R-22 refrigerant, which describes the dangers of toxic gases while working with refrigerants. Expert testimony solidified the fact that HVAC technicians can reasonably be expected to know that when refrigerant is brazed, it can decompose into toxic gas like phosgene. Johnson's own misreading of the MSDS or allegedly inadequate training was not relevant and did not raise a triable issue of fact.

Although the Supreme Court did not set forth specific criteria to determine whether a trade or profession is a sophisticated user, the facts in Johnson and the various state and federal authorities upon which the Court relied suggests that this doctrine will have broad application. Indeed, the Court specifically references cases from California and other jurisdictions involving manufacturers of:

  • natural gas pipe,

  • scaffolding,

  • pellet guns,

  • intrauterine devices,

  • skeleton trucks, and

  • asbestos-containing products.

The California Supreme Court's adoption of the sophisticated user doctrine and support for its subset and related defenses now means that a manufacturer has no liability for failure to warn of hazards objectively obvious to consumers, their learned intermediaries (e.g., physicians), or individuals who represent that they are trained or members of a sophisticated group, effectively saying to the world that they possess the level of knowledge and skill associated with that class. With Johnson, manufacturers gain long overdue protection from expansive tort liability theories, and California gains a more sophisticated tort law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.