Johnson v. American Standard, Inc.
California Supreme Court
179 P.3d 905 (2008)

- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
William Keith Johnson (plaintiff) was a trained and certified heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) technician from 1996 to 2002. Johnson sued American Standard, Inc., and other air-conditioning manufacturers and chemical suppliers (collectively, the manufacturers and suppliers) (defendants) for injuries stemming from his diagnosis of pulmonary fibrosis, a lung disease that can result from breathing phosgene gas. Johnson specifically alleged injury from welding a refrigerant line on an evaporator manufactured in 1965 by American Standard, Inc. Johnson alleged that the manufacturers and suppliers failed to warn of the risks of a common refrigerant, R-22, breaking down into dangerous phosgene gas if heated through the welding process. HVAC technicians had generally known about the dangers and risks associated with R-22 and phosgene gas as early as 1931. In Johnson’s professional certification and training, he learned about the risks of R-22 and phosgene gas. Beginning in 1997, every time Johnson purchased R-22, he received and sometimes read its Material Safety Data Sheet, which detailed the dangers of refrigerant chemicals, including R-22. Under claims of negligence and strict liability, Johnson alleged the manufacturers and suppliers failed to warn of the hazards of R-22 exposure. The manufacturers and suppliers moved for summary judgment, contending they had no duty to warn Johnson, a professional HVAC technician, who belonged to a class of sophisticated users who were well aware of the dangers of R-22. The trial court granted the manufacturers and suppliers’ motion for summary judgment, ruling the sophisticated-user doctrine alleviated a duty to warn trained and certified HVAC technicians of R-22’s potential health hazards. The appellate court affirmed. Johnson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Chin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.