On December 20, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District published its opinion in Kevin Buckner v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation. The Court of Appeal re-articulated the sophisticated user defense, expanding the range of information that a product manufacturer defendant must prove in order to successfully defend on a sophisticated user basis.
In October 2009, Plaintiff Buckner, a maintenance worker, was using a power drill when the drill bit bound and the drill counter rotated, twisting Bender’s arms and causing serious injuries. The drill was manufactured by Defendant Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation (“Milwaukee”). Buckner sued Milwaukee, in part, on a failure to warn theory – namely, that there was no label on the drill advising that a side handle had to be used to avoid serious injury, and that the warnings in the operator’s manual were insufficient to advise of the need to use a side handle. In response, Milwaukee claimed that Buckner was a sophisticated user and that, consequently, any failure to warn was not the legal cause of Buckner’s injuries.
The trial court jury found that Buckner was a sophisticated user. Buckner thereafter moved for a new trial on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict, which the trial court granted and entered. Defendant’s appeal brought the case before the Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District.
Citing to Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, the Court of Appeal discussed the sophisticated user defense, reiterating that, “in order to establish the defense, the defendant must identify the relevant risk, show that sophisticated users are already aware of the risk, and demonstrate that the plaintiff is a member of the group of sophisticated users.” The specific issue on appeal was the definition of the relevant risk and the scope of knowledge of the risk the group of users must possess in order to be considered sophisticated users. Milwaukee claimed that the danger of which the sophisticated user must be aware was that the drill would bind and counter-rotate, twisting the user’s wrist or arm. The Court ultimately concluded the issue was broader than that relied upon by Milwaukee.
Rejecting Milwaukee’s framing of the issue, the Court clarified that “in order for the defense to apply, the scope of knowledge of the sophisticated user must parallel the scope of the warning that would otherwise be required.” The Court reasoned that the scopes must be parallel because the knowledge of the sophisticated user is, effectively, a substitute for a manufacturer’s warning. Thus, “a manufacturer must demonstrate that sophisticated users of the product know what the risks are, including the degree of danger involved […], and how to use the product to reduce or avoid the risks, to the extent that information is known to the manufacturer.” In other words, the sophisticated user must know of the hazard posed by the product, as well as the severity of the potential consequences and any known mitigation techniques.
Applying this standard to the case before the Court, Milwaukee was required to prove (1) that sophisticated users know there is a danger the drill may bind and counter rotate, (2) that this may cause serious injury, and (3) that the risk may be reduced or eliminated through proper use of a side handle. Although Milwaukee presented evidence as to the first requirement, it failed to prove the second and third requirements.
The Court of Appeal’s decision expanded the amount of information a sophisticated user must possess regarding the dangers posed by a product. The Court of Appeal held that it is not enough to prove that a plaintiff, “because of his particular position, training, experience, knowledge, or skill, knew or should have known of the [product’s] risk, harm, or danger.” Product manufacturers should be aware that the Buckner court’s holding now requires defendant manufacturers to prove a higher threshold of information to assert the sophisticated user affirmative defense.
This document is intended to provide you with information about product liability law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.