New Automotive Safety Preemption Case

   

  As many readers of CalBizLit know, federal preemption is a recurring
issue in product liability cases.  The law of preemption California       
just took a step in the direction of  automobile manufacturers.

     The requirements for passenger vehicle restraint systems in the United States are established by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) 208, set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Agency (“NHTSA”) under authority of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (49 U.S.C. § 30101 et seq.)  The safety act requires combination lap shoulder belts at the outboard (e.g., window) seats, but allows either lap belts or lap shoulder belts at inboard (usually middle) seats. 

     The Safety Act has a preemption provision, providing that, on the one hand, states may impose requirements relating to the same aspects of performance as those promulgated under the Act only if they are identical, but that, on the other hand, “[c]ompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard prescribed under this chapter does not exempt a person from liability at common law.” (49 U.S.C. § 30103(e).) 

     Until yesterday, the law in California was that product liability law suits claiming defects in restraint systems that conformed to those authorized by FMVSS 208 were not preempted.  Ketchum v. Hyundai Motor Co. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1672.  But now, maybe not so much.  

     Yesterday, the Court of Appeal decided Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America (October 22, 2008) ___Cal.App.4th ___ (G038845).  The vehicle in Williamson was in a head-on collision.  Two back-seat passengers were strapped into three-point restraints and survived.  The decedent was secured by the middle two-point lap belt, jackknifed and was killed.  Plaintiffs’ counsel acknowledged before the trial court that his only theory was that the manufacture of the vehicle with a lap belt instead of a lap shoulder belt was a product defect, and the court granted judgment on the pleadings.

     The Court of Appeal held that Ketchum was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s more recent holding in Geier v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (2000) 529 U.S. 861 finding preemption of a product claim based on failure to install air bags, where  FMVSS 208 allowed installation of air bags or other passive restraints.  Based on the reasoning in Geier , this Court of Appeal held that the product defect claim was preempted.

     Now of course, technically there are conflicting Court of Appeal decisions on this issue, and under Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (1962) 57 Cal. 2d 450, every trial court in the state is entitled to follow either one of them.  I’m guessing, however, that when or if issue comes up again, whether concerning restraints or other performance standards, the trial courts are going to take the safe route and follow Geier and Williamson.

            BTB, congratulations to my friend Brian Takahashi at Bowman and Brooke in Los Angeles, the winner here.