Page 1 of 1

Federal Regulation? Schmegulation! No Preemption!

Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:23 pm
by brian
Feb 25, 2011: In a recent ruling in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America (No. 08-1314), the Supreme Court today reversed a California decision and resuscitated a product liability claim involving the failure to install lap/shoulder-combination seatbelts in a minivan. The Court unanimously held that implied preemption under Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. (2000), was unavailable.
The decision means...Federal Regulations, Schmegulations! THEY STILL CAN SUE YOU!!
For a discussion of the implications of the ruling, see Opinion analysis: Preemption trimmed in automobile product liability litigation

Re: Federal Regulation? Schmegulation! No Preemption!

Posted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:17 am
by brian
Feb 23, 2011: Another take on the Williamson v. Mazda Suprem Court decision.

Re: Federal Regulation? Schmegulation! No Preemption!

Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:24 pm
by brian
Feb 28, 2011: Bloomberg news: Ford Pickup Suit Revived by High Court After Mazda Ruling
Pandora's box is being opened...
  • The supreme court ruling in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America (No. 08-1314) is reviving a suit in South Carolina which blames Ford for the death of an ejected occupant from the back seat of a 1997 Ford F-150 pickup. They want to fault Ford for its use of tempered glass in the rear of a pickup truck, contending that some form of advanced glazing would have prevented her son from being ejected.
The justices today told the South Carolina Supreme Court to reconsider its rejection of the suit, pointing to their Feb. 23 ruling allowing a claim against a Mazda Motor Corp. unit over seatbelt design.
See Priester, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., No. 10-668