Under the “sophisticated user doctrine” (SUD), which is based on Section 388 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, a supplier has no duty to warn if the user appreciates the risk involved in the use of the product and is familiar with the product. The relevant inquiry in the sophisticated user defense turns on the end user's level of sophistication. The sophisticated user defense applies when a warning will have little deterrent effect, and allows the fact finder to determine that no duty to warn was owed.
California Developments
In
California, one appellate court (Second Appellate District) specifically adopted the SUD, finding it to be a natural outgrowth of the well-established rule that there is no duty to warn of known risks or obvious dangers. However, the Supreme Court of California depublished the case and granted review, so the issue remains unsettled. Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 496, 498-502, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 863, depublished and rev. granted, 2006
Cal. LEXIS 2 (Jan. 4, 2006).
In another
California district (First Appellate District), defendants in a welding products test trial sought summary judgment based on the SUD. However, the Alameda County Superior Court—in its Order on Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment and Summary Adjudication filed on October 29, 2007—refused to adopt the doctrine, citing the lack of appellate authority and the pending review of Johnson v. American Standard. Welding Products Cases [King, No. 04-429012], JCCP004368,
Calif. Super., Alameda Co.
Massachusetts Developments
In Carrel v. Nat'l Cord & Braid Corp., 447 Mass. 431 (2006), the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts explicitly adopted the SUD as a defense to failure to warn claims in products liability cases.
Since then, two cases decided in the federal district of
Massachusetts have cited Carrel. These cases discuss identification of the end user for purposes of SUD analysis; in each case plaintiffs argue that they themselves should be considered end users. In both cases the courts identify employers as the end users and proceed to apply the doctrine to shield them. Genereux v. Am. Beryllia Corp., 2007 Dist. LEXIS 76364; Taylor v. Airco, Inc., 2007 Dist. LEXIS 64441.
LexisNexis Sources
- California Superior Court Denies Defense Summary Judgment; Welding Liability Trial To Start Nov. 19, 4-8 Mealey's Litig Report Welding Rods 7 (2007).
- A Guide to Toxic Torts, Chapter 9, Defenses and Offsets, § 9.08 Bulk Supplier and Sophisticated Purchaser Defenses.
- Frumer & Friedman, Products Liability, Chapter 12, Warnings, § 12.06 Who Must Be Warned?
- Jury Instructions on Products Liability, Chapter 7, The Duty to Warn, § 7.14 Obvious dangers—The sophisticated-user doctrine.