California Court Holds That "Sophisticated User" Defense Does Not Apply To An Unsophisticated Employee 

On November 27, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District in Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. [B232315] refused to extend the "sophisticated user" defense to unsophisticated employees.  The plaintiff in Pfeifer contracted mesotheliamo allegedly as a result of having been exposed to asbestos during the time he was in the Navy and working for the U.S. government.  Typically, the manufacturer of a hazardous product is not obligated to warn a user if the user knew or should have known of the risk of harm or danger associated with the product, i.e., is a "sophisticated user."  There is a split of authority in other jurisdictions as to whether the defense applies to an employee of a sophisticated intermediate user.  In some jurisdictions the employer's "sophistication" is imputed to its employees.  The court in Pfeifer held that in California the focus is on the plaintiff's knowledge, not his employer's level of sophistication.  Accordingly, the mere fact the employer is sophisticated is not enough as a matter of law to avoid liability under the defense.

A complete copy of the Pfeifer decision can be found at courts.ca.gov.

By Todd A. Picker