Compliance with minimum seat belt standards does not preempt claim, court says.

The Sixth Circuit ruled in April that a products liability claim against an automaker for a defective seat belt design is not preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act even though the vehicle's seat belt system met the federal government's minimum requirements.

The court said the act's "savings clause" provides that "compliance with a motor vehicle safety standard ... does not exempt a [manufacturer] from liability." (King v. Ford Motor Co., No. 98-5960, 2000 WL 390539 (6th Cir. Apr. 19, 2000).)

The decision upheld a jury award in favor of Charles King, who sued Ford Motor Co. for the death of his wife, Patti Ann. The jury had found Ford liable for equipping the car in which she was killed with a defective automatic seat belt system that was "unreasonably dangerous" and for failing to warn consumers of its potential dangers. Ford appealed the verdict, arguing the plaintiff's claim was preempted by the Motor Vehicle Safety Act because the car complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208.

In August 1994, Patti Ann was riding in the front passenger seat of a 1992 Ford Escort when the car was hit by an oncoming pickup truck. She was wearing only the car's automatic shoulder belt. Her lower body slid forward while the shoulder belt tightened on her chest, breaking several ribs and lacerating her heart. The change in velocity during the accident was 27 mph, a relatively slow speed, said King's lawyer, Samuel Davies of Barbourville, Kentucky.

The automatic shoulder belt was part of a total personal restraint system that also included a manually operated lap belt and a knee bolster located in the glove compartment. These components complied with a front-seat crash-protection option allowed by FMVSS 208. The standard offered automakers three crash-protection options to choose from.

Sixth Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote for the three-judge panel, "The FMVSS provides only the `minimum standard[s] for motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment performance.' ... The Safety Act's savings clause ... states that compliance with FMVSS does not shield a manufacturer from liability...."

Davies said the shoulder belt's top anchorage was too far forward and the knee bolster was too far away to restrain Patti Ann's lower torso during the accident. Despite her failure to wear the lap belt, if Ford had changed the positions of the bolster and the anchorage, the force of the shoulder belt against Patti Ann's body would have been limited, said Davies.

Davies said criticizing a specific flaw in the design of the crash-protection system Ford chose to use was essential in protecting his client's claim. "All of these types of defective seat belt cases have been preempted because the claim criticizes the auto manufacturer's choice. King's claim was not criticizing the design choice but the specific defects within the design choice," he said.