Opinion ID: 2635992
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Fierro v. International Harvester Co.

Text: One California court has, in dictum, addressed the sophisticated user defense in the strict liability context, and the court's decision has been the focus of federal jurisprudence discussed further below. ( Fierro v. International Harvester Co. (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 862, 179 Cal.Rptr. 923 ( Fierro) . ) The plaintiff, Fierro, sued International Harvester Company (International), because it manufactured the truck her husband was driving when he crashed and died. ( Id. at p. 865, 179 Cal.Rptr. 923.) International manufactured skeleton trucks that came with only an engine, cab and chassis, which allowed purchasers to complete or add to the truck as they saw fit. (Ibid.) Luer Packaging Company (Luer) purchased one of these trucks from International and installed a refrigeration unit on the chassis. (Ibid.) Five years later, the plaintiffs husband was driving the truck in the course and scope of his job with Luer. The truck overturned after blowing a tire, crashed, skidded for a distance, spilled fuel, and caught fire. (Ibid.) The plaintiff and Luer's worker's compensation insurance carrier brought a wrongful death action seeking to impose liability on International for negligence and manufacturer's strict liability. ( Fierro, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 865, 179 Cal.Rptr. 923.) The evidence at trial focused on the location of the fuel tank and filler necks and their exposure to damage when the truck struck the guard rail and turned over. (Ibid.) During trial, the plaintiff alleged that International had to warn Luer that attaching power cables from the refrigerator unit to the truck's battery could create a fire hazard. ( Id. at p. 866, 179 Cal.Rptr. 923.) Even though these were not dangers an average consumer would perceive, the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the issue of failure to warn. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment after concluding that the court was justified in not instructing the jury on the failure to warn because the plaintiff had not properly raised that issue at trial. (Ibid.) In dictum, the Court of Appeal explained that International, as the defendant manufacturer, need not warn the purchaser Luer because [a] sophisticated organization like Luer does not have to be told that gasoline is volatile and that sparks from an electrical connection or friction can cause ignition. ( Fierro, supra, 127 Cal.App.3d at p. 866, 179 Cal. Rptr. 923.) The court observed that [t]here was no evidence that any feature of the skeleton unit was unique or contained any component or capability which was known to International and which was not known to or readily observable by Luer. The fuel tanks and the filler spouts were patently exposed, and they were obviously designed to hold gasoline. The properties and propensities of that volatile liquid are a matter of common knowledge. Nor did Luer need to be advised of the necessity to cover and protect the exposed fuel tanks before operating the unit under circumstances which could subject them to damage. (Ibid.) In other words, the lack of a warning to Luer did not substantially or unreasonably increase any danger that may have existed in using the [truck]. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal impliedly adopted the sophisticated user defense in rationalizing its affirmance of the trial court's judgment.