Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Summary Judgment for General Motors in HDBDK Seat Belt Case

DALLAS, Dec. 5, 2007 – Firm client General Motors Corporation previously obtained summary judgment in a wrongful death suit involving alleged design defects in a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am. Kyle H. Dreyer, Wendy L. May, and Pryce G. Tucker represented GM. The plaintiff died from injuries she received in the two-vehicle crash. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas – Fort Worth Division, before the Honorable John H. McBryde.

The plaintiffs sued GM under theories of strict products liability and negligence. They claimed the Grand Am was defectively designed and that GM failed to give proper warnings about the alleged defects. In particular, the plaintiffs alleged the center rear lap-only seat belt was defective because it lacked a shoulder restraint and retractor, and that the alleged defects resulted in the death of the center rear passenger.

General Motors moved for partial summary judgment on federal preemption grounds. It argued that because the federal government – through its regulatory agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration – had in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208 prescribed a comprehensive regulatory scheme with specific equipment options and requirements for the center rear seat belt system, state tort claims related to the design of the seat belt system were impliedly preempted. In a case of apparent first impression in the Fifth Circuit, U.S. District Court Judge John H. McBryde granted GM’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ seat belt claims. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's ruling.

On Dec. 4, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nine-page opinion affirming the summary judgment for General Motors (Lisa Ann Carden, et al. v. General Motors Corporation, et al., No. 06-11182). The Fifth Circuit held the plaintiffs' common law tort claim actually conflicts with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, and thus is preempted by federal law.