Opinion ID: 1408211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sophisticated User

Text: Defendants next argue that even if the danger of rifle fire was not open and obvious, the court of appeals erred in holding that whether Lt. House was a sophisticated user and thus knew or should have known of the limitations of his vest is for the jury to decide. Id. at 550. We agree with the court of appeals, however, that the facts are insufficient to find as a matter of law that Lt. House was a sophisticated user and that the group to which he belonged knew about the limitations of his vest. To avoid liability because the injured party was a sophisticated user, defendants must show that the ultimate user possesses special knowledge, sophistication, or expertise to such an extent that the user's knowledge of the danger is equivalent to prior notice. Id. at 549 (citing Billiar v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 623 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir.1980)). As the court of appeals noted, defendants need not show that Lt. House actually knew about the danger but that the community to which Lt. House belongs generally knows about the danger. Id. (citing Jackson v. Coast Paint & Lacquer Co., 499 F.2d 809, 812 (9th Cir.1974)). In other words, to sustain a conclusion that no duty was owed to the user because of his professional status, the court must find the record evidence to be undisputed that the user actually knew of the danger or that, based on the user's special expertise and the circumstances of the transaction, the supplier reasonably could have believed that he knew of the danger. Halter v. Waco Scaffolding & Equipment Co., 797 P.2d 790, 794 (Colo.Ct. App.1990). Defendants argue that Lt. House was a highly and specially trained prison officer and a weapons instructor who ... had investigated the threat protection levels afforded by soft and hard body armor and determined the protection level and thus was clearly knowledgeable regarding the characteristics of soft body armor vests. However, after reviewing the record, we agree with the court of appeals that there was insufficient evidence that any of the extensive training completed by Lt. House or other members of the SWAT Team involved the use and capabilities of body armor. House, 886 P.2d at 550. Moreover, Lt. House's SWAT team only started looking into purchasing and using body armor in 1980. Many team members testified that their initial investigation into the different types of body armor  which led to their purchase of the Armour vests in 1981  was conducted informally and haphazardly. Consequently, when Lt. House was killed, the team not only lacked knowledge about the capabilities of body armor, but also lacked experience in using the product. See Buettner v. R.W. Martin & Sons, 47 F.3d 116, 120 (4th Cir.1995) (finding that injured party was sophisticated user where he had fourteen years of experience in using commercial equipment); Lloyd v. John Deere Co., 922 F.2d 1192, 1196 (5th Cir.1991) (twenty-seven years of experience with tractors made plaintiff sophisticated user). Ultimately, although many of the SWAT team members stated that they believed their soft-body armor would not contain rifle fire, there is enough disputed evidence to prevent us from concluding as a matter of law that the capabilities and limitations of Lt. House's vest were generally known by all of Lt. House's SWAT team. We therefore affirm the court of appeals.