Plaintiff William Keith Johnson originally filed his suit in 2002. Plaintiff was a trained and certified heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) technician, who had received the highest certification possible from the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). He claimed that he contracted interstitial pulmonary fibrosis while repairing an air conditioning unit at a Bank of America branch in Torrance, California. The plaintiff was responsible for repairing large air conditioning systems, which commonly use R-22, a refrigerant which can decompose into phosgene gas when exposed to high heat or flame. Exposure to phosgene gas may cause numerous health problems, which has been generally known to manufacturers and HVAC technicians as early as 1931.

Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the air conditioning unit, American Standard Inc., on a number of causes of action, including negligence and strict liability failure to warn. Plaintiff's causes of action were based on the defendant's alleged failure to warn of the potential hazards of the R-22 refrigerant.

In May 2004, defendant moved for summary judgment primarily on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the risks of R-22 exposure because it could assume that the group of trained professionals to which plaintiff belonged were aware of those risks. The trial court proceeded to enter judgment in favor of defendant on all grounds, and the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment on the sole ground that the sophisticated user defense applies in California.

As a general rule, manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about the hazards inherent in their products. Under California law, a manufacturer is typically held strictly liable for injuries caused by their failure to warn of dangers that were known to the scientific community at the time they manufactured and distributed their product. A sophisticated user defense exempts manufacturers from their typical obligation to provide product users with warnings about the products' potential hazards, and is considered an exception to the manufacturers general duty to warn consumers. If successfully argued, the sophisticated user defense acts to negate the manufacturer's duty to warn.

After extensive briefing, the Supreme Court found in favor of the defendant, and held that "a manufacturer cannot be 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." The Court reasoned that 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 level of knowledge and skill, that fact should not give rise to liability on part of the manufacturer. The Court further held that the sophisticated user defense is applicable to both negligence and strict liability causes of action.

If you would like more information on this subject, please contact Deidre Cohen Katz, Tara S. Hizon, or any other WFB&M attorney with whom you have an existing relationship.

Related Practice Areas: Environmental/Toxic Tort Practice
Related Attorneys: Deidre Cohen Katz; Tara S. Hizon