Supreme Court Revives Ford Window Defect Suit
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered a South Carolina court to reconsider its ruling that a suit against Ford Motor Company over allegedly defective windows is preempted by federal law, citing the recent high court decision in a similar case against Mazda Motor Corp. The justices held that their ruling last week in Williams v. Mazda case, which involved defective seat belts, meant the Ford decision by the South Carolina Supreme Court must be revisited.
In the Williams case, the high court ruled that federal car safety standards do not preempt state tort claims over injuries when the federal regulations are aimed at setting a minimum safety standard. Plaintiffs cannot be barred from seeking damages at the state level for a company's failure to go above that minimum standard, the justices said.
Though it involves window glass rather than seat belts, similar claims are at issue in this South Carolina case, the high court ruled, so it vacated the South Carolina court's ruling and remanded the case for further consideration. Both cases involve Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that give carmakers the option of using two different types of safety features. In the Mazda case, it was a choice between lap seat belts and lap/shoulder belts. This South Carolina case deals with a choice between either tempered or laminated glass in the side windows of cars.
The case was brought by Mary Robyn Priester, whose son James Priester was killed in a crash in 2002 when he was ejected from the side window of a 1997 Ford F-150. She claims the truck was defectively designed because its side windows were made of tempered glass, which shatters on impact, rather than laminated glass, which holds together on impact and is designed to prevent ejections. As with the Williams case, the issue hinges on the extent to which federal regulations that give carmakers options on which safety features to include, preempt state law claims alleging a vehicle is defective for failing to choose one particular option.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration at one point considered requiring laminated glass in the side windows of all vehicles, but rejected that proposal in 2002, finding it would be too expensive for manufacturers.Still, the agency has cited the safety benefits of laminated glass and permits its use in vehicle windows, as well as the use of tempered glass.The South Carolina Supreme Court held that Priester's claims were preempted because they conflict with the federal safety standard giving automakers a choice of glass.
In the Williams v. Mazda matter, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the similar seat belt regulation was aimed at setting a minimum safety standard, and that giving carmakers a choice was not a significant regulatory objective. As a result, the regulation does not preempt Williamson's state law claims, the court ruled. "We are thrilled about the decision, but not surprised," Leslie Brueckner, a senior attorney at Public Justice PC representing the plaintif in the Ford case, said Monday. "Williamson basically destroyed the argument that the fact that manufacturers have an option is sufficient to defeat common law claims."
In a statement Monday, Ford downplayed the high court's decision to remand the Priester case. The company said it expects the Mazda case will have a limited impact on the auto industry, because it was confined to the facts of that case. Latham & Watkins, LLP is representing Ford.
The case is Priester v. Ford Motor Co., case number 10-668, in the U.S. Supreme Court, and case number 26846 in the South Carolina Supreme Court.