Minton v. Honda of American Mfg., Inc.
Decision Date | 15 October 1997 |
Docket Number | Nos. 96-2006,96-2025,s. 96-2006 |
Citation | 684 N.E.2d 648,80 Ohio St.3d 62 |
Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,083 MINTON, Exr., Appellant, v. HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC. et al., Appellees. |
Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
A state tort claim based upon a manufacturer's failure to equip its automobiles with air bags is not expressly or impliedly preempted by former Section 1381 et seq., Title 15, U.S.Code and regulations promulgated thereunder.
On March 14, 1991, Jeffery L. Minton was driving his 1990 Honda Accord on Hardin Road in Washington Township, Miami County, Ohio. A vehicle traveling in the opposite direction crossed the center of the road and collided virtually head-on with Minton's automobile. Although Minton was wearing both an automatic shoulder belt and a manual seat belt at the time of the accident, he sustained fatal head injuries.
On February 11, 1993, appellant, Mary Ann Minton, as executor 1 of the estate of Jeffery Minton, filed a survivorship cause of action on behalf of the estate of Jeffery and a wrongful death cause of action on behalf of (1) herself as surviving spouse, (2) Travis Minton, the eleven-year-old son of Jeffery and Mary Ann, (3) the parents of Jeffery, and (4) the other next of kin of Jeffery. The cause of action sounded in products liability and was filed against appellees Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. and others (collectively referred to as "Honda"). In the complaint, appellant alleged, inter alia, that the 1990 Accord driven by Jeffery and manufactured by Honda was defectively designed. Appellant's complaint was based in part on the fact that the driver's-side restraint system failed to properly protect Jeffery during the accident.
Prior to trial, Honda filed a motion in limine. Honda sought to preclude evidence by appellant that the 1990 Accord did not contain an air bag. In the motion, Honda asserted, among other things, that any claim pertaining to the absence of an air bag was preempted by federal law.
The trial court granted Honda's motion in limine. At trial, appellant attempted to demonstrate that the shoulder belt restraint system in the 1990 Accord was defectively designed. Appellant was allowed to introduce evidence of the belt geometry in a 1987 Honda Civic. However, appellant was not allowed to introduce evidence of subsequent changes made by Honda to its Accords and incorporated in 1992 models. According to appellant, 1992 Accords were safer in front-end collisions because the shoulder belt mechanisms in 1992 models had been changed and because 1992 Accords contained air bags.
During trial, the following colloquy occurred between the attorneys for the parties and the trial court with respect to Honda's motion in limine and the evidence proffered by appellant:
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Honda. Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
The court noted initially that the change in design of the shoulder belt restraint system in 1992 Accords was a subsequent remedial measure taken by Honda. In this regard, the court, citing McFarland v. Bruno Mach. Corp. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 305, 626 N.E.2d 659, agreed with appellant that "evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible to prove design defects in strict liability cases." Nevertheless, the court concluded that the trial court properly excluded any evidence of the occupant restraint system in 1992 Accords. Specifically, the court held:
The court of appeals ultimately concluded that appellant's design defect claim based on the failure to install a driver's-side air bag was not expressly preempted by former Section 1381 et seq., Title 15, U.S.Code ( ) and relevant regulations promulgated thereunder. Rather, the court held that appellant's "no air bag" claim was impliedly preempted by federal law. Thereafter, the court, finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Eleventh Appellate District in Nelson v. Ford Motor Co. (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 158, 670 N.E.2d 307, entered an order certifying a conflict, and we determined that a conflict existed (case No. 96-2025). Minton v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1421, 670 N.E.2d 1007. 2 The cause is also before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal (case No. 96-2006). The two appeals have been consolidated.
Shea & Associates, Joseph W. Shea III, Shirley A. Coffey and Andrea T. Rosenthal, Cincinnati, for appellant.
Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., and Hugh J. Bode, Cleveland; and Eric A. Portuguese, Millburn, for appellees.
Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Marshall I. Nurenberg, Richard C. Alkire and Kathleen J. St. John, Cleveland, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
The Landskroner Law Firm, Ltd., Jack Landskroner, Lawrence Landskroner and Arthur Bryant, Cleveland, urging reversal for amici curiae, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, Public Citizen, Center for Auto Safety, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.
Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott, Robert W. Kerpsack and Dale K. Perdue, Columbus; Coben & Associates and Larry E. Coben, Scottsdale, AZ, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Raymond Richard Nelson.
Thompson, Hine & Flory, Elizabeth B. Wright, Cleveland, and James W. Wiggin, III,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Geier v American Honda Motor Co.
...See, e.g., Drattel v. Toyota Motor Corp., 92 N. Y. 2d 35, 43_53, 699 N. E. 2d 376, 379_386 (1998); Minton v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 80 Ohio St. 3d 62, 70_79, 684 N. E. 2d 648, 655_661 (1997); Munroe v. Galati, 189 Ariz. 113, 115_119, 938 P.2d 1114, 1116_1120 (1997); Wilson v. Pleasant......
-
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado
...A.2d 345 (1995) (airbag); Drattel v. Toyota Motor Corp., 231 A.D.2d 326, 662 N.Y.S.2d 535 (1997) (airbag); Minton v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc., 80 Ohio St.3d 62, 684 N.E.2d 648 (1997) (airbag); Nelson v. Ford Motor Co., 108 Ohio App.3d 158, 670 N.E.2d 307 (1995) (airbag). See also Shipp v. Ge......
-
Cooper v. General Motors Corp.
...v. Pleasant, 660 N.E.2d 327, 330 (Ind.1995). Indeed, the Ohio Supreme Court's recent decision in Minton v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., 80 Ohio St.3d 62, 684 N.E.2d 648 (1997), recognizes just how clear and unambiguous Congress was in its intent to preserve state law remedies for i......
-
Drattel v. Toyota Motor Corp.
...to install air bags (see, Cellucci v. General Motors Corp., 550 Pa. 407, 706 A.2d 806, 809 [1998]; Minton v. Honda of Am. Mfg., 80 Ohio St.3d 62, 70-71, 684 N.E.2d 648, 655 [1997]; Munroe v. Galati, 189 Ariz. 113, 116-117, 938 P.2d 1114, 1117-1118 [1997]; Wilson v. Pleasant, 660 N.E.2d 327,......