In a landmark victory for injury victims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled November 20 that federal safety regulations do not bar state-law claims seeking to hold a car maker liable for using unreasonably dangerous glass in side windows. 

The court in O'Hara v. General Motors Corporation held that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 205, a regulation that gives car makers the option of using either "advanced glazing" or tempered glass in car side windows, is a minimum safety standard that does not preempt state-law defective design claims - a decision of national significance. The Fifth Circuit became the first appellate court in the nation to address this question. 

Public Justice, the national public interest law firm based in Washington, DC, filed an amicus curiae brief urging the court to rule as it did. The brief argued that, under governing Supreme Court precedent - including Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, a 9-0 victory argued by Public Justice Staff Attorney Leslie A. Brueckner - the plaintiffs' claims are not preempted because there is no conflict between federal law and the O'Haras' suit against GM.  

"The court rightly recognized that victims of dangerous automobiles have a right to their day in court, and that technical compliance with federal safety standards does not eliminate a manufacturer's duty to make its product safe," said Brayton-Baron Attorney Leslie Bailey, who authored the amicus brief with assistance from Leslie Brueckner. "This is an extremely thoughtful and well-reasoned decision that will be a model for other appellate courts facing this issue."

Chad  Claiming that GM could have prevented their daughter's injuries by installing side windows made using some form of advanced glazing (such as laminated glass, which holds together on impact), the O'Haras argued that the Tahoe's tempered glass windows were defective under Texas state law.

GM moved to dismiss the case, arguing that, because it had complied with federal safety standards, the O'Haras' claims were preempted by federal law.  The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

The Court of Appeals ruled that "the text and commentary on FMVSS 205 show that it is best understood as a minimum safety standard."  Based on an exhaustive analysis of the text and history of the safety standard, the court concluded that that fact that the regulation gives car makers a range of window-glazing options "does not establish a federal policy which would be frustrated by a state common law rule requiring advanced glazing in side windows."  The court thus held that the O'Haras' claims do not conflict with any federal objectives, and must be permitted to go forward.

Public Justice's amicus brief was filed as part of Public Justice's Access to Justice Campaign and Federal Preemption Project.  William E. Brown and Patrick M. Ardis of Wolff Ardis, P.C. in Memphis, Tennessee and Leon Russell of Russell & Shiver, P.C. in Dallas are counsel for the O'Haras.

The Court of Appeals ruling in O'Hara v. General Motors Corporation and the Public Justice amicus brief in the case are posted at http://www.publicjustice.net/briefs_documents.htm.