Turner v. PFS Corp.
| Decision Date | 13 October 1995 |
| Citation | 674 So.2d 60 |
| Parties | Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 14,439 Kenneth B. TURNER v. PFS CORPORATION. 1931169. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James H. Starnes and Valentina Gerdts-Hughes of Roden, Hayes, Carter & Starnes, Birmingham, for appellant.
Richard Rhea of Rhea, Boyd & Rhea, Gadsden, and Rhea A. Myers of Wheeler, Van Sickle & Anderson, S.C., Madison, Wisconsin, for appellee.
This case concerns whether the regulations and requirements of the Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") preempt the plaintiff's state law tort claims alleging injury as a result of the faulty design and manufacture of a mobile home. The trial court held that 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11 preempts all claims by the plaintiff and entered a summary judgment for the defendant, PFS Corporation. We reverse and remand.
The plaintiff, Kenneth B. Turner, was employed as a transit truck driver with Mays Enterprises. On April 7, 1987, he was rendered a paraplegic by personal injuries he sustained when the semi-tractor and manufactured home he was driving failed to stop and he ran into a culvert. The manufactured home was equipped with five axles, but only one was a braking axle. Turner sued PFS Corporation, which was licensed by HUD as a "design approval plant inspection agency" ("DAPIA") and as an "in-plant inspection agency" ("IPIA") to ensure that manufacturers complied with rules and regulations promulgated by HUD. Turner alleged that in approving the braking design of the subject manufactured home, PFS Corporation had acted negligently and/or wantonly and had violated HUD standards and good engineering practices.
The HUD regulations at issue were promulgated pursuant to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5401-5426 (NMHCSSA). The trial court agreed with the defendant PFS that the federal law preempts Turner's state law tort claims. Considering both the NMHCSSA and the HUD regulations, we hold that Turner's claims are not preempted.
Preemption is the exception to the general rule that federal law does not displace existing state law. Congress must clearly manifest a purpose to supersede the common law of the states for preemption to apply. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504, 515, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2617, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992). When Congress enacts an explicit provision on preemption and that provision supplies a " 'reliable indicium of congressional intent with respect to state authority,' ... 'there is no need to infer congressional intent to pre-empt state laws from the substantive provisions' of the legislation." Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 517, 112 S.Ct. at 2618 (citations omitted). In those circumstances, a court "need only identify the domain expressly pre-empted" by that provision. Id.
The express provision in the NMHCSSA, along with the explicit HUD regulation, defines the preemptive reach of federal regulation. See Scurlock v. City of Lynn Haven, Fla., 858 F.2d 1521, 1523 (11th Cir.1988) (); Woolridge v. Redman Homes, Inc., 792 F.Supp. 1469 (N.D.Tex.1991); Shorter v. Champion Home Builders Co., 776 F.Supp. 333 (N.D.Ohio 1991). Section 5403(d) of the NMHCSSA provides:
"Whenever a Federal manufactured home construction and safety standard established under this chapter is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any manufactured home covered, any standard regarding the construction or safety applicable to the same aspect of performance of such manufactured home which is not identical to the Federal manufactured home construction and safety standard."
Turner has put forth no allegations, arguments, or evidence concerning any state standards regarding manufactured homes. His claims are founded in tort, but the claims are based on the theory that PFS Corporation negligently and/or wantonly failed to comply with the federal HUD standards. He does not attempt to place greater safety requirements upon PFS Corporation than those imposed under the federal regulations. Rather, his claims assert a failure to comply with the federal standards themselves.
Significantly, § 5409(c) of the NMHCSSA provides that "[c]ompliance with any Federal manufactured home construction or safety standard issued under this chapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law." Read together, this section and § 5403(d) "preempt state law standards, but do not preempt most state law claims." Shorter v. Champion Home Builders Co., 776 F.Supp. at 337-38. See also Mizner v. North River Homes, 913 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1995) ().
The test for determining whether Turner's specific claims are preempted can be found in the preemption regulation 1 at issue here, 24 C.F.R. § 3282.11, 2 which, at the time of the events involved in this case, read as follows:
(Emphasis added.) The regulation can be understood to address common law rules as well as legislative rules. See Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 505 U.S. 504, 521-22, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2620, 120 L.Ed.2d 407 (1992) (). Turner's claims are not preempted, however, because enforcing the federal standards through state tort law does not frustrate federal supervision of the industry. 4 The availability of tort claims may serve to increase compliance by the industry. Thus, only claims that impose different state standards are preempted. See also Woolridge v. Redman Homes, Inc., 792 F.Supp. 1469 (N.D.Tex.1991) ().
Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P., sets forth a two-tiered standard for determining whether to enter a summary judgment. In order to enter a summary judgment, the trial court must determine: 1) that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and 2) that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In determining whether a summary judgment was properly entered, the reviewing court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Turner v. Systems Fuel, Inc., 475 So.2d 539, 541 (Ala.1985); Ryan v. Charles Townsend Ford, Inc., 409 So.2d 784 (Ala.1981).
Rule 56 is read in conjunction with the "substantial evidence rule" ( § 12-21-12, Ala.Code 1975), for actions filed after June 11, 1987. See Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of Baldwin County, 538 So.2d 794, 797-98 (Ala.1989). To defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the opposing party must present "substantial evidence," i.e., "evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved." West v. Founders Life Assurance Co. of Florida, 547 So.2d 870, 871 (Ala.1989).
The purpose of the NMHCSSA is to ensure manufactured home safety, including safety during transportation of manufactured homes. Scurlock v. City of Lynn Haven, Fla., 858 F.2d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir.1988) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 5401). To accomplish this goal, HUD promulgated 24 C.F.R. §§ 3280-3282, applicable to builders of manufactured homes. To sell and transport a manufactured home within the United States, the manufacturer must have on the home a HUD label certifying compliance with the federal standards. Such a label may be affixed to a manufactured home only if the design is approved by a DAPIA.
In this case, PFS Corporation, a HUD-licensed DAPIA, reviewed and approved--as in compliance--the design of the manufactured home involved in the accident that resulted in Turner's injuries. The braking system in this design included only one braking axle on the manufactured home. The defendant PFS's approval of the design was based solely upon a one-paragraph transportation letter written by the manufacturer, Mays Enterprises. Turner alleged that this design failed to comply with the federal standards and that PFS had negligently or wantonly certified this design, which he alleges caused his injuries. The trial court held that HUD regulations required PFS to accept this one-paragraph letter 5 as "documented evidence" proving compliance with the HUD safety standards, and it accordingly entered a summary judgment.
In opposing the defendant's summary judgment motion, Turner submitted the affidavit of engineer Harry Edmondson. Edmondson stated his opinion that PFS, in basing its approval of the one-braking-axle design on nothing but this short letter from the manufacturer, had breached its duty to ensure compliance. Federal standards regarding the adequacy of the braking system are set forth in 24 C.F.R. § 3280.904(a) and (b)(9):
"In operation, the transportation system (supporting the manufactured home structure and its contents) shall effectively respond to the control of the braking, while traveling at applicable towing vehicle in terms of tracking and highway speeds and in normal highway traffic conditions [sic]."
__________________...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gonzalez v. Drew Indus. Inc.
...preempts only those state standards or requirements that differ from the Federal standards promulgated by the Act. See Turner v. PFS Corp., 674 So.2d 60, 63 (Ala.1995) (“only claims that impose different state standards are preempted”); Macmillan v. Redman Homes, Inc., 818 S.W.2d 87, 94 (Te......