Low, Ball & Lynch’s

WEEKLY LAW RESUME

October 27, 2005 Issue   By: Ray Coates

 Duty of Care – Products Liability  – Sophisticated User Doctrine

 William Keith Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.

Court of Appeal, Second District

 (October 17, 2026)

In a products liability case based upon failure to warn one consideration is who is the user.  In this case, the Court considered whether a sophisticated user of a product may sue for lack of warnings that reasonably should be known. 

William Johnson, an EPA certified HVAC technician, who worked on commercial systems, alleged he was injured by phosgene gas, which was created during the ordinary maintenance and repair of commercial air conditioning systems.  Mr. Johnson sued a number of product manufacturers, chemical manufacturers, and chemical suppliers, including American Standard, Inc.  The theory of liability was that American Standard, Inc. knew that harmful phosgene gas would be created when its evaporator was serviced and failed to provide adequate warnings. 

American Standard, Inc. moved for summary judgement on the grounds that it had no duty to warn about the dangers of the refrigerant because it was not their product, and also that Mr. Johnson was a sophisticated user and no duty to warn arose because the risk was within the professional knowledge of HVAC installers and repairers.  The trial court granted the motion on both grounds.  Mr. Johnson appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, based upon the sophisticated user doctrine.  The Court noted that, while manufacturers have a duty to warn of dangers that are known to the scientific community at the time of manufacturing and distributing a product, the sophisticated user doctrine is an exception.  This rule holds that ordinarily there is no duty to give warnings to members of a profession against generally known risks.  This doctrine has been adopted across the United States. 

William Johnson was a sophisticated user of commercial HVAC systems.  Mr. Johnson had been certified by the EPA.  He had also been trained at a technical trade school.

The parties disagreed on whether this doctrine was part of California law.  The Court of Appeal said that the rule was no more than an expression of common sense, and thus if it had not been specifically articulated as a rule in California, it should be.  The Court noted that no California court had squarely adopted the doctrine.  However, the Court viewed it as a natural outgrowth of the rule that there was no duty to warn of known risks or obvious dangers.  The Court felt the doctrine had been applied in California, although not specifically so named.  The Court thus felt the doctrine was part of California law. 

The Court further held that, despite the declaration of Mr. Johnson that he did not know of the dangers of phosgene gas being created during the work, the contrary evidence created undisputed evidence that HVAC technicians could reasonably be expected to know that when refrigerant is heated, it can decompose into toxic by-products, including phosgene gas.  The Court dismissed Johnson’s declaration as to no more than an assertion that he did not know the danger.  The Court stated, given the other evidence, that this did not create a triable issue of fact as to whether American Standard could reasonably expect that HVAC technicians would know of the risk.  This was because the sophisticated user doctrine allowed the Court to hold that a sophisticated user should have known of the risk, even though he contended he did not.  The judgment was therefore affirmed.

COMMENT

This is an interesting case to read, and doubtless will be petitioned to the Supreme Court for review.  The opinion contains a review of this doctrine throughout the United States and is interesting in that regard, as well as for its approach to contested facts on a summary judgment motion.              

____
To order a printed version of this analysis, or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission. Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000, [email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a Professional Corporation, with offices in San Francisco, Redwood City and Monterey, California.