As described by the Michigan Court of Appeals, the rationale behind the sophisticated user doctrine is that “[a] seller or manufacturer should be able to presume mastery of basic operations by experts or skilled professionals in an industry, and should not owe a duty to warn or instruct such persons on how to perform basic operations in their industry.” Ross v. Jaybird Automation, Inc., 172 Mich.App. 603, 432 N.W.2d 374, 376 (1988). As similarly explained by the Michigan Supreme Court: There are countless skilled operations such as the rigging of scaffolding, which involve otherwise non-dangerous products in potentially dangerous situations. A manufacturer of such a product should be able to presume mastery of the basic operation. Th Corp., 4 F.Supp.2d 1198, 1203 (S.D.Ga.1998) (<HOLDING>); Fernandez v. Tamko Bldg. Products, Inc., 2
holding no duty owed by chemical supplier to warn manufacturers employees where suppliers customer the manufacturer was sophisticated user of the chemical which had used the chemical for years had produced its own training materials and used its own staff to advise employees on procedures for handling chemical holding that if a user actually knows of the danger a failure to warn cannot be a proximate cause of the injury holding that in a negligence claim there is no postsale duty to warn or remedy when the product was nondefective under standards existing at the time of manufacture holding there is no duty to warn of risks obvious to the average user of the product holding that chemical storage terminal was a sophisticated user under georgia law to whom calgon had no duty to warn that its cleaning product would ignite when used near stored chemicals