Wickstrom by Wickstrom v. Maplewood Toyota, Inc.
| Decision Date | 22 December 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. C1-87-1231,C1-87-1231 |
| Citation | 416 N.W.2d 838 |
| Parties | , Prod.Liab.Rep.(CCH)P. 11,687 Jan Marie WICKSTROM, by H.S. WICKSTROM and John Ring, conservators of the person and Estate of Jan Marie Wickstrom, Appellant, v. MAPLEWOOD TOYOTA, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Appellant's claim with respect to use of air bags as an alternative safe design to remedy automobile design defects is expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law.
James A. Jardine, John R. O'Brien, Pierre N. Regnier, Jardine, Logan & O'Brien, St. Paul, for appellant.
David W. Graves, Jr., Wayne Struble, Minneapolis, for respondents.
Stephen M. Shapiro, Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Ill., for amici curiae The Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., The Automobile Importers of America, Inc., and The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the U.S., Inc.
Heard, considered and decided by FORSBERG, P.J., and LANSING and NIERENGARTEN, JJ.
Jan Wickstrom brought a products liability action against Toyota Motor Corporation and its chain of distributors (hereinafter Toyota) alleging, inter alia, that an alternative safe design to remedy design defects in Wickstrom's Toyota Tercel was the use of an air bag in conjunction with the three-point seatbelt. Toyota moved for partial summary judgment on this portion of the claim. The trial court held that Wickstrom's "air bag" claim was preempted by federal law and directed entry of final judgment. Wickstrom appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
In March 1983, Jan Wickstrom was driving her 1983 Toyota Tercel when she was struck head-on by a fleeing bank robber. Wickstrom was wearing her seatbelt and shoulder belt but was severely injured as a result of the accident. Wickstrom claimed her Tercel was negligently designed and manufactured and unreasonably dangerous for its intended purpose because, among other things, the car did not contain air bags.
Is Wickstrom's claim that her car was defective and unreasonably dangerous because of Toyota's failure to install air bags expressly or impliedly preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act?
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (NTMVSA) provides:
(a) The Secretary shall establish by order appropriate Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Each such Federal motor vehicle safety standard shall be practicable, shall meet the need for motor vehicle safety, and shall be stated in objective terms.
* * *
(d) 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 to 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. * * *
* * * (f) In prescribing standards under this section, the Secretary shall--
(1) consider relevant available motor vehicle safety data, including the results of research, development, testing and evaluation activities conducted pursuant to this chapter;
(2) consult with the Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission, and such other State or interstate agencies (including legislative committees) as he deems appropriate;
(3) consider whether any such proposed standard is reasonable, practicable and appropriate for the particular type of motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for which it is prescribed; and
(4) consider the extent to which such standards will contribute to carrying out the purposes of this chapter.
15 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1392 (1982). In addition, the NTMVSA provides that:
Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subchapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.
In response to Congress' directive, the Department of Transportation promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 which gave automobile manufacturers the choice of using seatbelts, air bags, or a combination of seat belts and air bags. See 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.208 (1982).
If Wickstrom's suit against Toyota leads to a verdict for Wickstrom, such a verdict reduced to judgment is a form of state action, at least as it relates to preemption. See San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 247, 79 S.Ct. 773, 780, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959); Vanover v. Ford Motor Co., 632 F.Supp. 1095, 1096 (E.D.Mo.1986). Air bags clearly involve the same aspect of performance as seat belts, that of passenger restraint. A state tort award for failure to install air bags would conflict with the choices given manufacturers under Safety Standard 208. Such a result is preempted by 15 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1392(d).
Wickstrom contends the following "savings clause" of the NTMVSA preserves all common law claims and therefore her air bag claim as well.
Compliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subchapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.
General savings clauses will not preserve common law claims which interfere with or frustrate the purposes of the act. See International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 805, 812, 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987) (). The purpose of such savings clauses is
not to nullify other parts of the act, or to defeat rights or remedies given by preceding sections, but to preserve all existing rights which were not inconsistent with those created by the statute.
Blackburn v. Doubleday Broadcasting Co., 353 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Minn.1984) (quoting Pennsylvania Railroad v. Puritan Coal Mining Co., 237 U.S. 121, 129, 35 S.Ct. 484, 487, 59 L.Ed. 867 (1915)). The clear meaning of the NTMVSA clause is that compliance with federal standards will not protect automobile manufacturers from liability for design defects in connection with matters not covered by federal standards.
Even if Wickstrom's air bag claim was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cellucci v. General Motors Corp.
...v. Chrysler Corp., 177 Wis.2d 207, 501 N.W.2d 865 (Wis.Ct.App.), review denied, 510 N.W.2d 137 (Wis.1993); Wickstrom v. Maplewood Toyota, Inc., 416 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1236, 108 S.Ct. 2905, 101 L.Ed.2d 937 (1988); see also Gracia v. Volvo Europa Truck, N.V.......
-
Hyundai Motor Co. v. Alvarado
...920 P.2d 67 (1996) (lap belt); Martinez v. Ford Motor Co., 224 Mich.App. 247, 568 N.W.2d 396 (1997) (airbag); Wickstrom v. Maplewood Toyota, Inc., 416 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.Ct.App.1987) (airbag); Panarites v. Williams, 216 A.D.2d 874, 629 N.Y.S.2d 359 (1995) (airbag); Gardner v. Honda Motor Co.,......
-
Cellucci v. General Motors Corp.
...80 (1989), cert. denied, Meier v. Nissan Motor Corp., 494 U.S. 1066, 110 S.Ct. 1782, 108 L.Ed.2d 784 (1990); Wickstrom v. Maplewood Toyota, Inc., 416 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.App.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1236, 108 S.Ct. 2905, 101 L.Ed.2d 937 Nor does the existence of a savings clause change ou......
-
Cooper v. General Motors Corp.
...v. Baltimore County, 646 F.Supp. 761 (D.Md.1986); Vanover v. Ford Motor Co., 632 F.Supp. 1095 (E.D.Mo.1986); Wickstrom v. Maplewood Toyota, Inc., 416 N.W.2d 838 (Minn.Ct.App.1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1236, 108 S.Ct. 2905, 101 L.Ed.2d 937 (1988). ¶15 Yet, a few courts rebelled against th......