Supreme Court Gives the Go Ahead to State Court Seatbelt Claims
A Supreme Court ruling allows state tort claims to proceed against vehicle manufacturers with lax safety engineering. Learn more about the case, and what it means for those injured in car accidents.
April 07, 2011
In February, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided to allow the family of a woman killed in a car accident to sue Mazda for failing to install shoulder belts for all passengers in its minivans. Until now, this type of lawsuit has been thrown out by lower courts, since federal regulations allow companies to install lap belts only for middle second or third row seats. The new ruling will likely open up a variety of legal options for those injured in cars that do not meet the strictest safety standards.The Case
Thanh Williamson died in a 2002 accident while riding as a passenger in a Mazda minivan. She was in the aisle seat of the second row, where there was a lap seatbelt, but no accompanying shoulder restraint. Her family claimed that Williamson was thrown around in the crash, and that the lap belt by itself did not hold her securely. Instead, her family alleges that being hurled against the lap belt caused Williamson's grave internal injuries.
The Williamson family sued Mazda. In California, where the case was originally heard, courts rejected the case, citing federal safety standards that allowed the use of lap only seatbelts for rear middle seats. According to Mazda and the lower courts, this lawsuit would invalidate the choice given to manufacturers by federal regulations.
The Supreme Court, however, was not persuaded. The Justices found that the only reason the Department of Transportation allowed for the use of lap-only belts in rear middle seats was because it was a much cheaper option; since the regulations were not specifically meant to guarantee a choice for car manufacturers and bar related personal injury lawsuits, the Williamsons could sue in state court.
What the Decision Means
The Supreme Court only decided to allow the case to go forward; it will still be left to a judge or jury in a lower to court to determine whether Mazda's failure to install a shoulder belt amounted to negligence. But, while the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, the Supreme Court's ruling means greatly improved chances for those injured by design choices in vehicles, whether they meet minimum federal standards or not. If you or a member of your family has been injured in a car accident, contact an experienced personal injury attorney to learn more about your legal options.
Article provided by Goldenberg & Johnson, PLLC
Visit us at www.goldenberglaw.com