The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the Louisiana Supreme Court to review a decision that places manufacturers at risk of extraordinary liability for user risks they cannot control and harm they did not cause. The sophisticated user defense, which has long existed in Louisiana and around the country, is premised on the theory that a manufacturer has no duty to warn users of a product who possess sophisticated knowledge or professional training necessary to understand the risks associated with use of the product. The doctrine properly places the duty to warn workers of known product risks on the party best situated to ensure their safety: their employers.
In this case, the Court of Appeal departed from that well-established doctrine by subjecting a manufacturer of a non-defective product to liability when the risk at issue—here, zipper ruptures associated with commercial truck tires—is widely known among those who repair truck tires. The NAM filed an amicus brief arguing that manufacturers and others that supply products in Louisiana must be able to rely on Louisiana courts to apply the law correctly, even in difficult cases. If not corrected, the Court of Appeal’s holding will thwart the purpose of the Louisiana Product Liability Act, create confusion among Louisiana courts, and, most importantly, insulate employers from liability even when they fail to safeguard their employees from well-known risks. Unfortunately, on October 5, 2021, the court denied review.