How has the sophisticated user defense been applied to a failure to provide instruction for the safe rigging of a powered scaffold?

Antcliff v. State Employees Credit Union (1982) 414 Mich. 624 [327 N.W.2d 814] involved a claim that a scaffolding manufacturer breached its duty to provide instructions for the safe rigging of a powered scaffold. The court held "that on the facts of this case this defendant was under no duty to instruct on or give directions for the safe rigging of its product." (Id., 327 N.W.2d at p. 815.) There was evidence "that scaffolding rigging techniques were customarily learned on the job, knowledge passing from the more experienced worker to the less experienced worker, that scaffold workers did their own rigging, and that choice of suspension technique was largely a matter of personal preference." (Id. at p. 818.) The plaintiff, as a journeyman painter, had received both formal and on-the-job training, including training on how to rig scaffolding safely. (Id. at p. 818 & fn. 7.)

The evidence also established that the manufacturer produced products for professional riggers, and its "catalogue contained primarily technical information about the product line, the significance of which only an experienced rigger would appreciate." (Antcliff v. State Employees Credit Union, supra, 327 N.W.2d at p. 818.) The manufacturer sold the scaffolding to the plaintiff's employer, "an experienced subcontractor whose work involved extensive use of scaffolding." (Ibid.) The court concluded that "the circumstances here (a non-defective product lacking in dangerous propensities and a known or obvious product-connected danger) do not support application of the policy which would require [the manufacturer] to provide instructions for the safe rigging of its product." (Id. at p. 821.) Although not identified by name, the sophisticated user defense clearly was applied to a failure to provide instruction case.

Page 16