A California appellate court has affirmed the sophisticated user defense and applied it to an asbestos plaintiff who was the owner/operator of a garage subject to OSHA and thus chargeable with knowledge of asbestos risks.
In Watts v. Pneumo Abex, LLC, the three-justice panel reversed a jury verdict that Pneumo Abex LLC should pay more than $10.6 million to the widow of a man who died after developing lung cancer from alleged exposure to asbestos-containing building and automotive products. The panel determined that the Alameda County Superior Court trial judge had erred in granting a directed verdict against Abex's affirmative defense that the man was a "sophisticated user" who was already aware of the risks of asbestos. It was up to the jury to decide this issue given that the decedent owned an automotive repair business from 1983 to 2005 and thus was required to know about and abide by government warnings about the risks of working with brakes containing asbestos.
Abex presented evidence that Mr. Watts knew in the early 1980s that brakes were made of asbestos and that compressed air should not be used to blow out brake dust. Further, Mr. Watts admitted that he had not looked at manufacturer manuals or warnings because he believed he knew enough about fixing and inspecting brakes.
Nevertheless, the trial court granted the plaintiffs a directed verdict on Abex’s affirmative defense of sophisticated user. Ultimately, the jury found Abex 60% at fault, awarding the plaintiffs $2.9 million in economic damages, $6.75 million in non-economic damages, and $1 million for loss of consortium.
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the trial court and found that there was in fact substantial evidence to support Abex’s sophisticated defense. For example, by the time Mr. Watts opened his shop in 1983, both state and federal entities began to regulate the handling of asbestos-containing parts. Additionally, Mr. Watts had “admitted in his testimony in his brother’s lawsuit that he knew that the brakes contained asbestos.” He further admitted that he “avoided using compressed air because he did not want to fill the air with dust, as dust could be dangerous.” The Court of Appeal concluded that a jury could infer that Mr. Watts knew about the dangers of asbestos in brakes, especially due to his training and position as an owner of an auto repair shop.
The panel concluded that Mr. Watts' training and ownership of the automotive repair shop made him a member of a professional class and required him to know about and abide by government warnings regarding how to work with asbestos-containing brakes. Mr. Watts should have known, the panel said. Mr. Watts’ own admission that “he felt he was sufficiently proficient and knew to professionally and safely perform brakes jobs that he didn’t need to consult” manuals, proved that he was in fact a sophisticated user.
While the decision does not explicitly state that a sophisticated user finding was necessary in this case, it reaffirms that there was sufficient evidence for the issue to be decided by a jury rather than through a directed verdict. The panel remanded the case for a new trial.
Contact the authors or a member of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani’s Environment/Toxic Tort Practice Group with any questions about this legal update or other asbestos legal developments.