Originally published in New York Law Journal, , June, 2007
Manufacturers in products liability litigation have traditionally been held to a strict standard with respect to the duty to warn users of hazards associated with their products.
Under New York State Law, a manufacturer has historically been under a duty to warn of known hazards associated with the use of products without significant limitations.
However, a recent decision from the Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County, has applied the "sophisticated user" doctrine to limit the liability of manufacturers in cases where the ultimate user of the product possesses sufficient knowledge of the product so as to be aware of the hazard as a matter of law.
The "sophisticated user" doctrine is entrenched in federal case law, and the Rickicki Rickicki v. Borden Chemicals (53395, Decided Jan. 11, 2007, Supreme Court) decision may represent a willingness to incorporate it into New York State law.
On that date, in Buffalo, 16 years of silica litigation came to a close in a New York case and a companion case when a justice granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' employer was better positioned than they were to warn them about the hazards of silica exposure (David P. Rickicki and Patricia Rickicki v. Borden Chemical, et al., No. 53395; Michael C. Crowley and Sharon M. Crowley v. C-E Minerals, Inc., et al., No. 61024, N.Y. Sup., Cattaraugus Co.)
Origins of the Doctrine
The sophisticated user doctrine was highlighted in a 1988 article in the Virginia Law Review, which concluded that a manufacturer should be deemed to have fulfilled its obligation to warn by ensuring that the next entity in the chain of distribution knows or should know of a potential hazard associated with the use of a product. See "Failure to Warn and the Sophisticated User Defense," 74 Va. L. Rev. 579 (April 1988).
The rationale behind the concept is that product manufacturers are not typically in the best position to warn the ultimate user of potential hazards. Thus, according to the article, the responsibility to warn of hazards should flow down the chain of distribution to the retailer of the product or, depending on his level of knowledge and training, the user of the product.
Several Federal Court opinions recognized the sophisticated user doctrine as a viable defense for product manufacturers as early as the 1990s, but New York State courts have historically been reluctant to extend the defense beyond the area of suits involving prescription drugs or medical devices.
The 'Rickicki' Opinion
However, the opinion in Rickicki v. Borden Chemicals, may signal the beginning of state acceptance of the sophisticated user doctrine.
The plaintiff, David Rickicki, claimed that he was exposed to silica dust during the course of his employment as a casting molder, and developed silicosis as a result. He brought suit against various defendants that he believed to have supplied his employer with silica.
The evidence showed that dangers associated with silica dust were known to plaintiff's employer during the course of his employment. Representatives of plaintiff's employer testified during discovery that they received extensive training on the dangers of silica dust. Additionally, various supervisors and managers confronted plaintiff for failing to wear a proper mask or respirator during times of exposure to silica dust.
The court, in dismissing plaintiff's action against the manufacturing defendants, noted that a manufacturer is rarely well-equipped to warn eventual users of known hazards associated with its product. Citing the article from the Virginia Law Review, the court concluded that "generally, a manufacturer fulfills its obligation to warn by ensuring that the next purchaser in line knows or should know of potential dangers associated with the product" and held that since plaintiff's employer was well aware of the dangers associated with the defendants' product, the legal responsibility to warn the plaintiff of these dangers should rest with the employer. The duty to warn was thus satisfied in the case by instructing plaintiff's employer of the potential hazards associated with silica dust.
Future of the Doctrine
The Rickicki opinion clearly signals a willingness to afford greater protection to a larger class of product manufacturers. The opinion recognizes the complexity of the marketplace, particularly in terms of product manufacturing and distribution. The opinion is also significant in that New York law on the issue of a manufacturer's duty to warn is beginning to progress to the federal standard thus providing a more uniform duty to work under both federal and New York state law.
In light of the shift in the duty to warn under New York law set forth in the Rickicki opinion, a product manufacturer will have the freedom to assess the nature of the consumers of its particular product when determining which hazards require a warning and which warnings are rendered unnecessary. Additionally, defendants in products liability actions will have a greater ability to avoid liability to remote and even unforeseen plaintiffs by virtue of their reluctance to warn of dangers and hazards that are well-known to parties that are lower on the chain of distribution. Individuals that are injured by hazardous products will also be required to be guided in their election of remedies and the parties that are named as defendants in products actions, as the sophisticated user doctrine may signify a more limited pool of resources from which to recover.
Conclusion
Overall, it is clear that the apportionment of responsibility, and thereby liability to injured parties, will be substantially altered by the availability of the sophisticated user defense, and both the plaintiff and defense bar should be mindful of this potential shift.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
