Concerned Pennsylvania Auto Product Liability Lawyer Weighs In On United States Supreme Court Preemption Issue
Earlier in November 2010, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Williamson v. Mazda Motor Company of America. In this case, the Court addressed the issue of Federal preemption. As a Pennsylvania auto product liability lawyer who has been representing individuals and families of individuals who have been killed or catastrophically injured as a result of manufacturers’ defects, I am somewhat concerned that the current Supreme Court may side with big business rather than the individual consumer.
In this case, the family of Thanh Williamson, age 32, sued Mazda Motor Corporation of America following a 2002 car accident that killed Ms. Williamson as she was riding in the rear aisle seat of the second row of a 1993 MPV mini van. At the time the mini van was manufactured, the seat belts in the back were lap seat belts. More specifically, they did not contain a shoulder harness and were permitted by law. The Williamson van collided with a Jeep that became detached from a motor home that was towing it. The collision forced a jackknife of the plaintiff’s body around her lap belt causing severe abdominal injuries and internal bleeding according to the filed lawsuit.
Arguments were made at the lower trial level that the law gave Mazda the option of selecting the safest design and that Mazda made the wrong decision that a safer alternative design existed and that the additional cost of the design was minimal (merely pennies per vehicle). In short, the family alleged that Mazda made the decision not to install the safest seat belts and put profitability ahead of consumer safety.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a Bush appointee, indicated that he would vote to limit lawsuits and reenforce a 2000 decision that shielded car manufacturers from some claims. Justice Stephen Breyer said he was inclined to defer to the federal agencies which said that standards shouldn’t shield car manufacturers from suits claiming they did not do enough to make vehicles as safe as possible. Interestingly enough, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan voluntarily recused herself from the case due to the fact that she felt it would be inappropriate for her to be involved in the decision since during her term as Solicitor General for President Obama she urged the Court to consider this case. If there is a deadlock or a tie in the vote, Mazda would win due to the fact that the opinion of the lower court of appeals would stand.
As a practicing Pennsylvania personal injury and product liability lawyer, I believe that lawyers are the unsung heroes and policemen of society in that they give juries a chance to speak out against manufacturers who produce unsafe products. With the rising number of lawsuits filed against automobile manufacturers in the last few years and the more recent number of lawsuits filed against Toyota, this is an important case for all of us to watch. I will be curious to read the final opinion of the Court.
