In Daigrepont v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 2021 CA 0534 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2021), the Louisiana Appellate Court reversed reversed a decision by a state trial court that granted summary judgment to the distributor/seller of a plug valve that allegedly failed and led to an explosion at an Exxon Mobil Corporation (ExxonMobil) refinery resulting in injuries to the claimant. The appeals court found that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the seller sold the plug valve at issue to ExxonMobil and whether ExxonMobil was a sophisticated user that did not require any warning.
The case arose out of an explosion and fire which occurred in the Sulfuric Acid Alkylation Unit (Alky Unit) at the ExxonMobil refinery in Baton Rouge, Louisiana on November 22, 2016. At the time of the explosion, pipeline work was taking place in the Alky Unit. The claimant was working nearby when an ExxonMobil employee was performing work on a plug valve that was connected to a pressurized isobutane line. The claims were based on an alleged failure to warn of an explosion hazard in the valve when certain pressure containing bolts were removed.
Despite questions of fact remaining as to whether it had even sold the valve, the defendant supplier alternatively claimed that ExxonMobil was a sophisticated user to whom no duty to warn of any defect was owed. As a result of their familiarity with a product, sophisticated users are presumed to know the dangers presented by the product. Hence, there is no duty to warn them. Whether an individual is a sophisticated user is ordinarily a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact.
An ExxonMobil representative testified in deposition that he was unaware of ExxonMobil having received notice of a prior incident along with a notification from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in 1981, advising that a configuration like that of the subject plug valve was unsafe because a technician could inadvertently remove the pressure-containing bolts from the top cap of the valve. Based on the testimony, the court found that the trier of fact could conclude that ExxonMobil did not possess more than a general knowledge of plug valves and of plug valves of the same configuration as the plug valve at issue. As such, the trier of fact could find ExxonMobil was not a sophisticated user.
On appeal, the defendant supplier could not demonstrate that ExxonMobil had familiarity with plug valves with a configuration like the subject plug valve or possessed more than a general knowledge of such plug valves and how they are used so as to have been a sophisticated user on this basis. Therefore, the appeals court held that the trial court erred in concluding the supplier established that ExxonMobil was a sophisticated user such that it was not required to warn ExxonMobil of the risk of inadvertent removal of the four pressure-containing bolts securing the top cap in the subject valve.