 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hernandez-Gomez v. Leonardo11/1/1994
FELDMAN, Chief Justice
The court of appeals denied special action relief in this case and we granted review to consider an issue of first impression in this state: Does the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Safety Act) preempt a state law tort action against a car manufacturer that did not incorporate a lap belt in its passive restraint system?
We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 8.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The operative facts are few and undisputed. On November 6, 1989, Amparo Hernandez-Gomez (Plaintiff) was riding in the right front seat of a 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit when the driver briefly took his eyes off the road. Travelling between 30 and 35 miles per hour, the car veered off the road and ran down an embankment. It struck a drainage culvert, flipped over, and landed on its roof. Plaintiff's head and shoulders smashed against the car's roof causing a spinal cord injury that has left her paraplegic.
Plaintiff alleges that the design of the car's safety restraint system failed to adequately protect her from a foreseeable rollover and actually enhanced her injuries. The restraint system consisted of a shoulder belt that automatically moved into place diagonally across the chest when the door was shut, a knee bolster, and a seat designed to prevent the occupant from submarining under the dashboard in a head-on collision. Because it was designed to be fully automated, the system did not include a manual lap belt that arguably would have prevented Plaintiff from being thrown against the roof of the car. Plaintiff claims that the absence of a lap belt made the car defective and unreasonably dangerous to its occupants.
On January 15, 1993, Volkswagen of America and Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft (collectively VW) moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the car's passive restraint system complied with federal design and performance standards, which required no lap belt. So finding, and concluding that the Safety Act preempted state tort law so that compliance with the Act insulated the manufacturer from common-law liability, the trial Judge granted partial summary judgment in VW's favor on March 16, 1993.
Seeking relief from the trial court's order, Plaintiff brought a special action before the court of appeals, which declined jurisdiction on April 20, 1993. This court then accepted review of the following issues:
1. Whether the trial court incorrectly interpreted and applied the principles of federal preemption set forth in the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Cipollone so as to abrogate Plaintiff's right to bring an action to recover damages for injuries resulting from negligent and/or defective design.
2. Whether common law product liability actions brought in Arizona are preempted by the Safety Act or [Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards].
The fundamental question is whether an automobile manufacturer can be liable under state tort law for a product design defect when that design meets Safety Act standards.
Discussion
A. The Safety Act and Its Standards
Congress passed the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq.) in 1966 "to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from traffic accidents." Congress authorized the Secretary of Transportation to formulate safety standards to protect the motoring public against an unreasonable risk of injury due to "the design, construction or performance of motor vehicles . . . ." The Secretary of Transportation delegated the duty of writing Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standar
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|