For a PDF version of this article click here.

Geier Does Not Affect Rollover or Lap Belt Claims, TLPJ Argues

Andrews Automotive Litigation Reporter
Volume 21, Issue 20, June 4, 2002; Page 3.

Owner's Service Manual for the 1981 VW Rabbit and Rabbit Convertible, whose front-seat restraint systems did not include  manual lap belts.

Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, in an amicus brief to the Arizona Supreme Court supporting the plaintiff in a restraint system design case, contends that the 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. should not bar claims involving a rollover accident and the lack of a lap belt. Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of America Inc. et al., No. T-01-002-CV, amicus brief filed (Ariz., Apr. 29, 2002); see Automotive LR, Oct. 23, 2001, p.4.

Amparo Hernandez-Gomez was seriously injured when the 1981 Volkswagen Rabbit in which she was a passenger flipped over and landed on its roof. She filed suit, claiming that the front-seat restraint system should have included a manual lap belt.

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in 1995 and again in 1996 (Hernandez-Gomez II) that the plaintiff's claims were not preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The case proceeded to trial, where Hernandez-Gomez was awarded $3.1 million in damages.

In 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. Inc., 529 U.S. 861, 120 S.Ct. 1913, L.Ed. 2d 914 (2000). The high court held that lawsuits involving restraint system design were impliedly preempted by the Safety Act, because such claims would conflict with the intent of the law to allow manufacturers a choice of design options, as long as safety requirements were met.

In ruling on Volkswagen's challenge to the Hernandez-Gomez verdict, the Arizona Court of Appeals held, 'The Court's analysis in Geier leads to the same conclusion here.' The panel vacated the verdict, finding the plaintiff's claims preempted by the Safety Act.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208, as promulgated under the Safety Act, allowed Volkswagen to choose between three options when designing the 1981 Rabbit restraint system. The automaker decided to equip the vehicle with an automatic shoulder belt. Hernandez-Gomez claimed that such a design did not protect her in rollover crashes, as opposed to a frontal impact.
The appeals court ruled, 'Although the FMVSS 208 at issue here did not expressly prohibit manufacturers from adding other safety equipment to any of the available options, we read Geier as holding that FMVSS 208 gave manufacturers an unfettered choice among those options and precluded a common- law action requiring additional safety equipment not otherwise called for by the chosen option.

'And, because only one of the available options in FMVSS 208 addressed rollover crash protection ... any other reading of Geier would force manufacturers to add rollover protection to any other option they chose in order to avoid common-law liability. This would, in our opinion, pose an obstacle to alternative choices 'the federal regulation sought.''

The TLPJ Amicus Brief

In support of Hernandez-Gomez, who is challenging the appeals court decision in the Arizona high court, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice contends, 'Geier did not undermine or invalidate this Court's holding in Hernandez-Gomez II.'

The plaintiff's claims are not impliedly preempted, the organization says, because the case involves a rollover crash and the passive restraint option chosen by Volkswagen was merely designed to provide frontal crash protection.

Second, TLPJ notes, this is a no-lap-belt case as opposed to a no-air-bag case. 'The federal government has never expressed any concerns about lap belts of the sort it expressed about air bags - and that led to the Supreme Court's implied preemption finding in Geier. To the contrary, the federal government has consistently encouraged the installation and use of manual lap belts, and specifically told VW it was free to install lap belts in the 1981 Rabbit.'

Finally, according to TLPJ, Hernandez-Gomez did not contend that VW chose the wrong option, but claimed that the automaker 'should have done more than the bare minimum required to comply with the option it chose.'

As a legal matter, the amicus brief states, 'Geier does not hold that auto manufacturers are immune from liability whenever a federal regulation provides them with options and a common-law claim alleges they should have chosen an option different than they did. In fact, in a series of amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (and specifically endorsed in Geier, see 529 U.S. at 883), the federal government itself has consistently rejected car manufacturers' attempts to advance such a broad preemption argument.'

The brief was filed by Richard P. Traulsen of Begam, Lewis, Marks & Wolfe in Phoenix; Leslie A. Brueckner of TLPJ in Washington, D.C.; and Arthur H. Bryant of TLPJ in Oakland, Calif.