Supreme Court of California

The Supreme Court of California adopts the "sophisticated user" doctrine and defense to negate a manufacturer's duty to warn of a product's potential danger when the plaintiff has (or should have) advance knowledge of the product's inherent hazards. The defense applies to plaintiffs who knew or should have known of a product's hazards, and it acts as an exception to manufacturers' general duty to warn consumers.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/03/2008
• Published 04/03/2008

Judges

• CHIN, J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Metzger Law Group, Raphael Metzger, Gregory A. Coolidge, Long Beach, and Peter F. Klein, for Plaintiff and Appellant., Steven G. Ingram and Sharon J. Arkin, Sacramento, for Consumer Attorneys for California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Munger, Tolles & Olson, Jeffrey L. Bleich, Kathleen M. McDowell, Paul J. Watford, Blanca Fromm Young and Aimee Feinberg, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent., Hugh F. Young, Jr.;   Martin, Bischoff, Templeton, Langlset & Hoffman, Jonathan M. Hoffman;  Drinker Biddle & Reath and Alan Lazarus, San Francisco, for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent., Horvitz & Levy, David M. Axelrad, Mary-Christine Sungaila, Encino;  National Chamber Litigation Center, Inc., and Robin S. Conrad, for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, American Chemistry Council, American International Companies, ExxonMobil Corporation, The Farmers Insurance Group of Companies and Honeywell International, Inc., as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent., Duane Morris, Robert L. Byer, Paul J. Killion and Kathryn K. Schutz, San Francisco, for FLSMIDTH, Inc., as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.