The plaintiff in this case worked for the Navy for many years, working around asbestos-containing boilers sold to the Navy by Foster Wheeler. He sued the company and many others for failing to warn him about the dangers of asbestos. The company's defense is based on the principle that a manufacturer does not need to warn a sophisticated user about the hazards of a product that are already known to it. The company asked for a ruling absolving it of liability because the Navy was in a better position and had the responsibility to warn its employees of hazards in the workplace.
The company lost a motion for summary judgment, and appealed to the California Supreme Court. The issue is whether the sophisticated user defense can be asserted against an employee of the sophisticated user. The NAM and other business groups sent a letter to the Court urging it to review this issue, as the issue affects hundreds of pending asbestos-related cases. Many cases recognize that the defense applies in suits by employees of sophisticated users. The Navy is in a much better position than the manufacturer to take proper precautions to protect their workers, and shifting that responsibility to the manufacturer removes the economic incentives that encourage employers to protect the safety of their employees.
On approximately 10/31/08, the California Supreme Court declined to review this case.