Supreme Court Holds Seatbelt Suits Not Pre-empted

more+
less-

The Supreme Court recently decided that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208), which requires auto manufacturers to install lap-and-shoulder seatbelts on seats next to a vehicle’s door frames, but allows manufacturers to choose between simple lap belts or lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats (such as middle seats or those next to a minivan’s aisle), did not pre-empt a state tort suit that would deny manufacturers a choice of belts for rear inner seats by imposing tort liability on those who choose to install a simple lap belt. Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 08-1314 (Feb. 23, 2011) .pdf.

In 2002 the Williamson family’s Mazda minivan was struck head-on by another vehicle. One family member sitting in a rear aisle seat, wearing a lap belt, died in the accident. Two other family members wearing lap-and-shoulder belts survived. They sued Mazda saying it should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts on rear aisle seats. The California trial court dismissed the claim and the California Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on an earlier Supreme Court case, Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), where the court held that a different portion of FMVSS 208 requiring installation of passive restraint devices (airbags) pre-empted a state tort suit that sought to hold an auto manufacturer liable for failure to install a particular kind of passive restraint. The Williamsons sought certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted review because other courts have interpreted Geier as indicating that FMVSS 208 pre-empts state tort suits similar to the Williamsons’. Holding that FMVSS 208 does not pre-empt these suits, the Supreme Court reversed the California Court of Appeal’s decision.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Published In: Conflict of Laws Updates, Personal Injury Updates, Products Liability Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sedgwick LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »