California Supreme Court Adopts Sophisticated User Defense

This is the biggest decision we've seen in a product liability case in quite some time.  Today, in Johnson v. American Standard (April 3, 2008) ___Cal.4th___ (S139184), the Cal Supremes squarely adopted the sophisticated user doctrine as a complete defense in strict liability failure to warn and negligent failure to warn cases.  The court adopted the doctrine right out of Restatement, Second of Torts, Section 388, subd.(b) comment (k).  And under the newly declared California rule, it doesn't matter whether or not the particular plaintiff is a sophisticated user: 

"A manufacturer is not liable to a sophisticated user of its product for failure to warn of a risk, harm or danger, if the sophisticated user knew or should have known of that risk, harm or danger.  It would be nearly impossible for a manufacturer to determine whether a given user or member of the sophisticated group actual has knowledge of the dangers because of the infinite number of user idiosyncrasies. . . .individuals 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.

The court leaves open one important question:  what if the manufacturer sells to the employer, and it is the employer who is alleged to be the sophisticated user?  While that was not the scenario here, it was in In re Related Asbestos Cases (D.C. Cal. 1982) 543 F.Supp. 1142, where Federal District Court Judge Peckham held that the Navy's status as a sophisticated user was an affirmative defense in product liability matters brought by its former employees.  In today's Johnson decision, the Supreme Court cited Judge Peckham's decision repeatedly.