Two Issues Decided: 1) Sophisticated User Doctrine Not A Complete Defense To Plaintiff’s Failure To Warn Claim; 2) Punitive Damages Issue To Go To Jury.

Plaintiff developed mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos from brake and clutch repairs while operating services stations for 40 years. He brought an action against multiple defendants, alleging several causes of action. The matter proceeded to trial against Ford Motor Company only. A jury rendered a plaintiff’s verdict on negligence and product liability claims, and the trial court denied Ford’s JNOV. On appeal, Ford argued plaintiff was a “sophisticated user” and its JNOV should have been granted. On that issue, the appellate court affirmed, stating: “We conclude the sophisticated user doctrine did not constitute a complete defense to plaintiffs’ failure to warn claims because Ford failed to prove the risks of automotive asbestos exposure should have been known by mechanics in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, when [plaintiff] began his career.”

Plaintiff cross-appealed because the trial court effectively struck his demand for punitive damages, finding Michigan law, which does not permit punitive damages unless specifically authorized by statute, applied in this case. The appellate court reversed on that issue and remanded the matter to the trial court on the issue of punitive damages, stating: “Applying California’s ‘governmental interest’ conflict of laws analysis, we conclude Michigan courts have no interest in seeing the application of this principle in the courts of California, which apply a contrary principle in allowing punitive damages.”  (Scott v. Ford Motor Company (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 1; March 26, 2014) (As mod. April 23, 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1492, [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 823.])