Welcome the "sophisticated user doctrine".

• Author: Kissane, Gene P.
• Position: Products liability defense doctrine

A Complete Defense to Unjustified Products Liability Claims Against Innocent Manufacturers

Florida tort law is currently ill-equipped to protect innocent manufacturers from the ravages of unjustified products liability claims. Many products liability claims originate when an employee's misuse of a product causes injury to the employee or to a third person. Oftentimes, the manufacturer provides legally sufficient warnings for the safe and effective use of the product, but the employer fails to integrate these warnings into the training given to employees or the employees simply ignore the provided training. Due to the courts' rigorous enforcement of sovereign and workers' compensation immunity, the damages recoverable in these cases are inadequate when compared to the injury.[1] For this reason, plaintiffs' attorneys often file suit against the manufacturer under negligent and strict products liability theories even though it should be obvious that the manufacturer is not at fault. At present, there is a dearth of established products liability defenses to terminate these types of unjustified claims pretrial. Hence, manufacturers are compelled to expend exorbitant litigation and settlement costs which ought to be borne by others.

The sophisticated user doctrine addresses these concerns and provides a sound legal basis for eliminating these types of unfair products liability claims pretrial. This products liability defense permits manufacturers to discharge their duty to third persons by providing adequate warnings for the reasonably safe and effective use of their product to a sophisticated entity whom the manufacturer reasonably believes will pass the warnings to the product's ultimate user. Under these circumstances, the duty to warn and supervise the product's ultimate user and protect the third persons should be shifted in its entirety to the sophisticated user of the manufacturer's product.

Threshold Question

The threshold question in sophisticated user cases should be whether a product is more appropriately characterized as an "unreasonably dangerous product" or as a "chattel known to be potentially dangerous for its intended use."

Although often overlooked, the answer to this question is essential to the proper adjudication of many products liability cases. The reason is that, especially when a sophisticated user or purchaser of a manufacturer's product is involved, the respective duties and standards of conduct owed toward a personal injury plaintiff can be vastly dissimilar. Indeed, the answer to this question may determine whether a product manufacturer owes any duty toward an injured party at all. These assertions will be supported by a discussion of established Florida products liability law and how these principles have evolved to the point where the next logical step is the acceptance of the sophisticated user defense and the Slavin rule's extension to a narrow class of products liability cases.

In West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976), the Florida Supreme Court officially adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts [sections] 402A's approach toward strict products liability. That restatement section provides: (1) One who sells any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property is subject to liability for physical harm thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to his property, if

(a) the seller is engaged in the business of selling such a product, and

(b) it is expected to and does reach the user or consumer without substantial change in the condition in which it is sold. (2) The rule stated in Subsection (1) applies although

(a) the seller has exercised all possible care in the preparation and sale of his product, and

(b) the user or consumer has not bought the product or entered into any contractual relation with the seller.

In application, the relevant inquiry is whether the product was reasonably safe for its intended use, as manufactured and designed, when it left the plant of the manufacturer.[2]

In order to establish strict liability pursuant to West, a plaintiff must plead and prove: 1) the manufacturer's relationship to the subject product; 2) the defect; 3) the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product; and 4) the existence of proximate causation between the condition and the user's injuries or damages.[3] A product is fairly characterized as defective if it is unreasonably dangerous and placed in the hands of a consumer without warning.[4] In contrast, a product is not considered unreasonably dangerous, irrespective of warning, when the hazards associated with its use are obvious, reasonably apparent, or as well known to the product's user as the manufacturer.[5]

In Cohen v. General Motors Corp., 427 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment order where the plaintiff manually released his car's emergency brake while the car was running, and was injured. In doing so, the court reasoned:

A duty to warn arises where a product is inherently dangerous or has dangerous propensities. Thus, a warning of a known danger in a non-defective machine is required in the exercise of reasonable care. Further, a supplier of a product who knows or has reason to know that the product is likely to be...