SCOTUS: Complying With Regulations Is Not A Tort Defense

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

In what may be one of the most important Supreme Court rulings for the car industry in some time [full opinion in PDF here], the highest court in the land has found that compliance with minimum federal safety standards is not a defense against personal injury or wrongful death suits brought in state courts. The case in question involved a 2002 accident in which Than Williamson was killed when a Jeep Wrangler hit her family’s 1993 Mazda MPV. The Williamson MPV had only lap belts because shoulder belts weren’t required by federal law until 2007. A California court has already barred the lawsuit from coming forward, arguing that federal regulations supersede any local rulings, and that then-legal seatbelts should protect manufacturers from personal injury liability. But in the wake of another ruling involving pharmaceutical companies, it seemed that the court might overturn that ruling, which it now has.

The issue, according to Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion, comes down to the government’s intent. A previous ruling had held thata different portion of (an older version of) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 (FMVSS 208)—a portion that required installation of passive restraint devices—pre-empted a state tort suit that sought to hold an auto manufacturer liable for failure to install a particular kind of passive restraint, namely, airbags. We found that the federal regulation intended to assure manufacturers that they would retain a choice of installing any of several different passive restraint devices. And the regulation sought to assure them that they would not have to exercise this choice in favor of airbags. For that reason we thought that the federal regulation pre-empted a state tort suit that, by premising tort liability on a failure to install airbags, would have deprived the manufacturers of had assured them.The lower courts used this logic to protect Mazda from a lawsuit by the Williamson family, but the Supreme Court found that in the case of three-point seat belts, however, the issue changes. When it comes to the previous ruling about airbags, wrote Breyer,That regulation required manufacturers to equip their vehicles with passive restraint systems, thereby providing occupants with automatic accident protection. But that regulation also gave manufacturers a choice among several different passive restraint systems, including airbags and automatic seatbelts. By requiring manufacturers to install airbags (in order to avoid tort liability) the tort suit would have deprived the manufacturers of the choice among passive restraint systems that the federal regulation gave them.In that case,the regulation’s history, the agency’s contemporaneous explanation, and its consistently held interpretive views indicated that the regulation sought to maintain manufacturer choice in order to further significant regulatory objectives.But, in this casethese same considerations indicate the contrary. We consequently conclude that, even though the state tort suit may restrict the manufacturer’s choice, it does not “stan as an obstacle to the accomplishment . . . of the full purposes and objectives” of federal law. Thus, the regulation does not pre-empt this tort action.Why?The more important reason why DOT did not require lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that it thought that this requirement would not be cost-effective. The agency explained that it would be significantly more expensive for manufacturers to install lap-and-shoulder belts in rear middle and aisle seats than in seats next to the car doors. Ibid. But that fact—the fact that DOT made a negative judgment about cost effectiveness— cannot by itself show that DOT sought to forbid common- law tort suits in which a judge or jury might reach a different conclusion. For one thing, DOT did not believe that costs would remain frozen. Rather it pointed out that costs were falling as manufacturers were “voluntarily equipping more and more of their vehicles with rear seat lap/shoulder belts.”…to infer from the mere existence of such a cost-effectiveness judgment that the federal agency intends to bar States from impos- ing stricter standards would treat all such federal standards as if they were maximum standards, eliminating the possibility that the federal agency seeks only to set forth a minimum standard potentially supplemented through state tort law. We cannot reconcile this consequence with a statutory saving clause that foresees the likelihood of a continued meaningful role for state tort law.It’s a complicated ruling that centers on regulatory intent, but it’s already having a huge impact. Bloomberg reports:Auto shares plunged following the ruling. Ford Motor Co. shares fell as much as 4.38 percent to $14.44, the lowest price since Nov. 3. Ford fell 43 cents, or 2.8 percent, to $14.80 at 10:27 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. General Motors Co. fell 48 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $35.30.This is definitely a ruling to remember if and when the Motor Vehicle Safety Act comes back to congress.



Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 23 comments
  • M 1 M 1 on Feb 24, 2011

    What actually happened here was that SCOTUS absolved the government of any liability for the value of the standards it imposes.

  • Stevelovescars Stevelovescars on Feb 24, 2011

    As stated earlier, this isn't a finding of liability againgst Mazda, it just allows the plaintiff to sue them and make their claim in front of a jury... or more likely to just extort a settlement out of Mazda because it's cheaper than fighting the suit. This bugs me, but not as much as when manufacturers get sued because they used technology MANDATED by government regulators. All of the lawsuits about injuries caused by airbags bother me more because the DOT specifically mandated high-power airbags and ignored warnings from the manufacturers about injuries to children and smaller adults. The DOT even disallowed the OEMs from putting stronger and more ominous warning stickers in the cars thusly equipped.

    • Steven02 Steven02 on Feb 28, 2011

      Just to clarify, the DOT now allows for smart airbags that adjust for the size of the person in the seat and in some cases turns off the airbag completely.

  • Kwik_Shift Brands that were considered from China include BYD, Dayun, Great Wall Motors, Maxus, Nio, Omoda/Chery, Seres, XPeng, and Zeekr. KG Mobility from South Korea also made the list of candidates.That's a lot of car companies from there ready to head here.
  • Analoggrotto Clean sweep and unanimous victory for the world affluence engine of 22nd century : Hyundai/Kia/Genesis. Toyota and Lexus, for 120 years of history have not been able to capture the zenith superlative status of Hyundai Motor Corporation the most awarded, decorated and revered automotive corporation in the history of historical. Featuring best ever, first ever and greatest ever e-ATPs the Hyundai Genesis Kia lineup is posed to become the envy of every country club, ivy league college and fortune 500 corporation in the world. I've been taking a roadtrip in my loaner Elantra N, visiting colleges from east to west, elite universities of higher learning to inspect their parking lots. WHat did I find? Leagues of Genesis models, outnumbering Lexus 3 to 1. When I interviewed faculty and staff at these places of greater learning, their response was unanimous : they chose HMC for the ATPs.
  • Mikey 2019 Chevy Impala Premier FWD with 20 inch factory Bridgestones. I'm looking at replacing tires at the 65,000 KLM's (40,000 miles ) mark ....It doesn't thrill me .. I'm pricing Michelin Cross Climate 2 tires ouch !! ..Up here in Canuckastan ....Big $$$$$
  • ToolGuy Honda was robbed.
  • ToolGuy "Honey, someone is trying to cross the moat again"
Next