Federal Regulation? Schmegulation! No Preemption!

Litigation Topics and News Relative to Accident Reconstruction
Post Reply
brian
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:52 am

Federal Regulation? Schmegulation! No Preemption!

Post by brian » Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:23 pm

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
Question? Comment? Please email forum@mchenrysoftware.com. Also see the McHenry Forum Index
Visit McHenrySoftware.com for technical information & software. McHenryConsultants.com for litigation consulting.
(c) McHenry Software, Inc ALL Rights Reserved.

brian
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:52 am

Re: Federal Regulation? Schmegulation! No Preemption!

Post by brian » Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:17 am

Feb 23, 2011: Another take on the Williamson v. Mazda Suprem Court decision.
Question? Comment? Please email forum@mchenrysoftware.com. Also see the McHenry Forum Index
Visit McHenrySoftware.com for technical information & software. McHenryConsultants.com for litigation consulting.
(c) McHenry Software, Inc ALL Rights Reserved.

brian
Posts: 506
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:52 am

Re: Federal Regulation? Schmegulation! No Preemption!

Post by brian » Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:24 pm

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
Question? Comment? Please email forum@mchenrysoftware.com. Also see the McHenry Forum Index
Visit McHenrySoftware.com for technical information & software. McHenryConsultants.com for litigation consulting.
(c) McHenry Software, Inc ALL Rights Reserved.

Post Reply