In our March column, “Supreme Court Speaks (Again) on Preemption of Lawsuits,”1 we reported on the Supreme Court’s decision in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America Inc.2 holding that a California lawsuit attacking the rear aisle seat lap belt as defective in design was not preempted even though the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) allowed manufacturers a choice of installing either a lap belt or a lap-and-shoulder belt. The Court reasoned that the choice or option was not a “significant objective” of the federal regulation dealing with rear seat restraints. On the other hand, in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co.,3 the Court held that a “no-air bag” lawsuit attacking the manufacturers’ choice of a lap-and-shoulder belt in the front seat, one of several options permitted by FMVSS 208, was preempted. Williamson distinguishes Geier as a case where the restraint options were a “significant objective” of the regulation.
Federal preemption of certain kinds of automotive products liability claims continues to be a battleground despite Williamson’s narrowing of the opening. In the March column, referring to several specific cases, we talked about side window glass litigation where some plaintiffs’ experts have urged that laminated glass should have been used instead of tempered glass. Just weeks ago, a new post-Williamson preemption ruling emerged, this time involving air bag warnings, as prescribed by FMVSS 208 which requires labels that must be permanently affixed to the sun visors for front outboard seating positions.
