Boyle v. Chrysler Corp.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-1961,92-1961
• Citation: 501 N.W.2d 865,177 Wis.2d 207
• Parties: , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,657 Christine A. BOYLE, Plaintiff-Respondent, d v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Richard Nash and Washburn County, Defendants.
• Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Page 865

501 N.W.2d 865

177 Wis.2d 207, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,657

Christine A. BOYLE, Plaintiff-Respondent, ^d v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant Richard Nash and Washburn County, Defendants.

No. 92-1961.

Court of Appeals of Wisconsin.

Submitted on Briefs April 1, 1993.

Opinion Released May 18, 1993.

Opinion Filed May 18, 1993.

Before CANE, P.J., and MYSE and SCHUDSON, JJ.

MYSE, Judge.

Chrysler Corporation appeals a trial court order denying its motion seeking to dismiss that portion of Christine Boyle's claim attributing her injuries to Chrysler's failure to equip her automobile with an airbag or other passive restraints. Chrysler also appeals the trial court's refusal to preclude the admission of evidence regarding the absence of an airbag or other passive restraints. ¹ Because we conclude that compliance with the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1381 (1982), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. § 571.208 (1979) (collectively, "the federal Act") preempt state law claims based on the absence of airbags or other passive restraints, the order is reversed with directions to enter an order precluding admission of evidence regarding the absence of an airbag or other passive restraints.

The facts are undisputed. In August 1987, Boyle was driving a 1980 Plymouth Horizon. Although the car was equipped with a manual combination lap and shoulder belt for the driver's seat, Boyle was not wearing the seat belt. At a curve in the road, Boyle's vehicle went into a ditch and rolled over, throwing Boyle from the vehicle and injuring her.

Boyle filed a lawsuit against Chrysler and others claiming, among other things that because the 1980 Plymouth Horizon lacked an airbag or other passive restraints, it was defectively designed and manufactured, making it unreasonably dangerous to users. Chrysler moved for partial summary judgment under sec. 802.08, Stats., seeking dismissal of the portion of Boyle's claim based on the absence of passive restraints. At oral argument and in a subsequent letter brief Chrysler requested, in the alternative, an order under sec. 802.11(1)(a), excluding evidence of the lack of passive restraints in Boyle's car.

The trial court addressed only the motion for partial summary judgment and treated it as one under sec. 802.08, Stats. The court concluded that the motion for partial summary judgment was improper because Boyle's contentions concerning the lack of passive restraints in her car was one aspect of her personal injury claim and not a separate cause of action. The court therefore denied Chrysler's motion without addressing the preemption issue raised in its request for a sec. 802.11(1)(a), order precluding evidence of the lack of passive restraints in Boyle's car.

PROCEDURE

Chrysler Corporation first contends that the trial court erred by refusing to grant an order excluding evidence regarding the lack of passive restraints. Boyle argues that because the motion requested only a partial summary judgment, Chrysler has waived the sec. 802.11(1)(a), Stats., issue. We reject Boyle's waiver argument. Chrysler's claim that evidence of the lack of passive restraints should be excluded because federal statutes preempt that portion of Boyle's claim was clearly raised by the substance of the motion, in Chrysler's letter brief and during oral argument. In fact, Boyle responded to the letter brief, and the court referred to the brief in its memorandum decision. In the past, we have looked beyond the form or designation of a motion to its substance to determine what relief was sought and whether the motion was meritorious. See, e.g., In re T.M.S., 152 Wis.2d 345, 353-54, 448 N.W.2d 282, 285-86 (Ct.App.1989). Thus, we conclude that the issue was raised before the trial court.

Because the bases of a claim may not be fragmented by a summary judgment, the trial court concluded that it could not grant the relief Chrysler sought. Apparently relying on the same reasoning, the court refused to exclude evidence regarding the lack of passive restraints under sec. 802.11(1)(a), Stats. We conclude that the trial court erred when it concluded that the relief Chrysler sought was unavailable. A misapplication or erroneous view of the law constitutes an erroneous exercise of discretion. See State v. Hutnik, 39 Wis.2d 754, 763, 159 N.W.2d 733, 737 (1968).

"Where certain factual and legal matters are capable of resolution prior to trial ... a pretrial order ... is the appropriate method to define and simplify the issues that remain for trial." State v. Better Brite Plating, Inc., 160 Wis.2d 809, 813, 466 N.W.2d 239, 243 (Ct.App.1991), modified on other grounds, 168 Wis.2d 363, 483 N.W.2d 574 (1992). Section 802.11(1)(a), Stats., granting the court authority to "[d]efin[e] and simplif[y] ... the issues of fact and law," empowers the court to exclude evidence that does not provide a basis for granting relief. Section 802.11(1)(a) therefore permits the court to reach the preemption issue and to order the exclusion of evidence of the absence of passive restraints if it concludes that federal law precludes that basis for recovery. A sec. 802.11(1)(a) order limiting the issues and evidence at trial promotes judicial efficiency and saves the parties' time, effort and cost. If federal law preempts a claim based on the lack of passive restraints, the plaintiff cannot prevail on that basis. The trial court should rule on this issue before trial to determine whether this evidence is relevant so that the parties are spared the time and expense accompanying the presentation of evidence and expert testimony that is irrelevant to any lawful basis for the plaintiff's right to recovery. Because our resolution of this question is dispositive of the procedural issue, we need not address whether partial summary judgment was available. See Sweet v. Berge, 113 Wis.2d 61, 67, 334 N.W.2d 559, 562 (Ct.App.1983).

EXPLICIT PREEMPTION

Chrysler first contends that it is entitled to an order excluding evidence concerning the 1980 Plymouth Horizon's lack of passive restraints because the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) (1982), and the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, 49 C.F.R. § 571.208 (1979) explicitly preempt such claims.

15 U.S.C. § 1392(d) (1982) provides in part:

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard.

The federal safety standard for occupant restraints in automobiles manufactured during specific time periods is found in 49 C.F.R. § 571.208. The code lists the options for meeting the safety requirements for cars manufactured between September 1, 1973, and September 1, 1986. One of the options is the manual lap and shoulder seat belts for each front outboard seating position, with which the 1980 Plymouth Horizon was equipped. Because Chrysler elected to equip the Horizon with restraints authorized by the code, it is within the purview of the explicit preemption provision prohibiting states from requiring different restraints.

Boyle contends that because the explicit preemption clause does not specifically preempt common-law claims, they are not explicitly preempted. However, the United States Supreme Court recognized that, for purposes of preemption law, "the phrase 'state law' ... include[s] common law as well as statutes and regulations." Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2620, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992). Therefore, the federal Act explicitly preempts any state motor vehicle safety standards, including those established through the imposition of common-law liability, that are in conflict with the federal standards.

Other jurisdictions that have construed the federal Act have held that "no air bag" claims similar to Boyle's are expressly preempted because they would impose a standard in conflict with the federal standards, even though common-law claims are not specifically preempted. See Vanover v. Ford Motor Co., 632 F.Supp. 1095, 1096-97 (E.D.Mo.1986); Cox v. Baltimore County, 646 F.Supp. 761, 763 (D.Md.1986); Wickstrom v. Maplewood Toyota, Inc., 416 N.W.2d 838, 840 (Minn.Ct.App.1987). We find these cases and their analyses persuasive.

Boyle next contends that the savings clause in 15 U.S.C. § 1397(k) (1982) removes her lack of passive restraints claim from preemption under the explicit preemption provision. The savings clause provides: "Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subchapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law." We reject this reading of the savings clause because it would subvert the federal Act's statutory scheme. General savings clauses cannot be read to permit common-law actions that contradict and subvert a statutory scheme. See Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, ----, 112 S.Ct. 2031, 2037, 119 L.Ed.2d 157 (1992). The savings clause does not operate to preserve common-law liability claims that conflict with the federal safety standards. Rather, the savings clause preserves only those common-law liability claims that do not conflict with the automobile safety equipment standards that Congress enacted.

We note that other jurisdictions have held that the savings clause preserves state common-law actions that do not conflict with the federal Act's explicit preemption of non-identical motor vehicle safety standards. For example, the savings clause preserves from preemption common-law actions concerning failure to warn, Richards v. Michelin Tire Corp., 786 F.Supp. 959, 961-62 (S.D.Ala.199...