Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02517/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02517-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 355
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Product Liability
Cause of Action: 

---

PUBLISH .FILED • '. ·, , ••• a r ., •.•• ,UNI-T,ED .STATES, ,COURT ··OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United S,t~tes Court o! Ap In 

1enth (;irr.,iif .Pea'' 

MAY 1 91989 

PAULINE W. KITTS, as Personal ) 

Representative of the Estate of ) 

Willard F. Kitts, Deceaseo, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V C ) 

) 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

PRODUCT LIABILITY ADVISORY ) 

COUNCIL, INC., AUTOMOBILE ) 

IMPORTERS OF AMERICA, INC., and ) 

MOTOR VEHICLE MANUFACTURERS ) 

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED ) 

STATES, INC., ) 

) 

Amicus Curiae. ) 

________________ ) ) 

WAYNE M. RICHART, as Personal ) 

Representative of the Estates ) 

of Norman J. Richart, Deceased, ) 

and Jean R. Richart, Deceased, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

THE ASSOCIATION OF TRIAL LAWYERS} 

OF AMERICA; TRIAL LAWYERS FOR ) 

PUBLIC JUSTICE; and UNITED ) 

STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Amici Curiae. ) 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 87-2517 

No. 88-1900 

Appellate Case: 87-2517 Document: 01019957887 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 1 
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO · . .-,(:E>.C-.~,CIV·-·8·5~0967-JC -for ',Tenth, Cir. No. 87-2517) 

(D.C. Civil No. 86-0926-JB for Tenth Cir. No. 88-1900) 

Joseph Goldberg of Carpenter & Goldberg, P.A., Albuquerque, New 

Mexico (William H. Carpenter and David J. Stout of Carpenter & 

Goldberg, P.A., and William E. Snead of Ortega & Snead, P.A., 

Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the briefs), for PlaintiffAppellant in No. 87-2517. 

David M. Heilbron of Mccutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, San 

Francisco, California (Leslie G. Landau of Mccutchen, Doyle, Brown 

& Enersen, San Francisco, California; Thomas E. Fennell of Jones, 

Day, Reavis & Pogue, D~llas, Texas; John P. Raleigh and Nicholas 

J. Wittner of General Motors Corporation, Detroit, Michigan; 

Russell D. Mann and Bob F. Turner of Atwood, Malone, Mann & 

Turner, Roswell, New Mexico, with him on the brief), for 

Defendant-Appellee in No. 87-2517. 

(William H. Crabtree and Edward P. Good, Detroit Michigan; Charles 

H. Lockwood II, Arlington, Virginia; and Paul M. Bator and Stephen 

M. Shapiro of Mayer, Brown & Platt, Chicago, Illinois, on the 

brief for Amicus Curiae in No. 87-2517.) 

* * * * * 

Malcolm E. Wheeler of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Los 

Angeles, California (Robert G. Mccorkle of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, 

Akin & Robb, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the 

briefs), for Defendant-Appellant in No. 88-1900. 

Walter J. Melendres of Montgomery & Andrews, P.A., Santa Fe, New 

Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellee in No. 88-1900. 

(Arthur H. Bryant of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, Washington, 

D.C., on the brief for Amicus Curiae Trial Lawyers for Public 

Justice, P.C. in No. 88-1900.) 

(Larry E. Cohen of Litvin, Blumberg, Matusow & Young, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Eugene E. Pavalon, President, The 

Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Chicago, Illinois, on the 

brief for Amicus Curiae The Association of Trial Lawyers of 

America in No. 88-1900.) 

(B. Wayne Vance, General Counsel, and Kenneth N. Weinstein, Deputy 

Assistant General Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation; 

Erika z. Jones, Chief Counsel, and David w. Allen, Assistant Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 

Washington, D.C.; William L. Lutz, United States Attorney for the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-2517 Document: 01019957887 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 2 
District of New Mexico; John R. Bolton, Assistant Attorney 

General, and Douglas Letter, Appellate Litigation Counsel, Civil .. -.,Di.vision; ,·Depa,r-t-men·t ,.of ,Justice ,"»Washington, · D·.·C .. , · on- the brief 

for Alnicus Curiae United States in No. 88-1900.) 

Before MCKAY, MCWILLIAMS, and BALDOCK,· Circuit Judges. 

MCKAY, Circuit Judge. 

Kitts v. General Motors Corp., No. 87-2517, and Richart v. 

Ford Motor Co., No. 88-1900, were separately submitted to us. On 

our own motion we consolidate for purposes of disposition of the 

preemption issue before us in both cases. 

Although the cases before us are not factually identical, 

appellants raise the same issue on appeal: whether section 

1392(d) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the 

"Safety Act"), 15 u.s.c. S 1381 (1982), preempts state tort claims 

against automobile manufacturers who comply with Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standards ("FMVSS") regarding occupant crash protection but fail to install air bags as well. See 15 u.s.c. 

S 1392(d) (1982) 1 and FMVSS 208, 49 C.F.R. S 571.208, S4.l.2 

1 Section 1392(d) states in pertinent part: 

Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this subchapter is in effect, no State or 

political subdivision of a State shall have any 

authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, 

with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor. 

vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the 

same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of 

equipment which is not identical to the Federal 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-2517 Document: 01019957887 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 3 
(1987). 2 In each case the plaintiff sued an automobile manufacfactured by it was negligently and defectively designed because it 

did not have a passive restraint system, i.e., air bags, in addition to or instead of federally approved safety belts. 3 

Both defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the 

ground that the Safety Act preempts plaintiffs' air bag claims. 4 

See 15 u.s.c. § 1392(d) (1987). In response to defendants' 

standard. 

15 u.s.c. § 1392(d) (1982). 

2 FMVSS 208 details the occupant crash protection options a 

manufacturer may install in passenger vehicles in order to comply 

with federal motor vehicle safety standards. At the time these 

automobiles were manufactured, a manufacturer could comply with 

FMVSS 208 by installing (1) a complete passive protection system 

for front and lateral crashes; (2) passive protection for frontal 

crashes plus lap belts with belt warning for side crashes and 

rollovers; or (3) manual lap and shoulder belts with belt warning. 

49 C.F.R. § 571.208, S4.l.2 (1987). 

3 In Richart, plaintiff alleged that the car was negligently 

designed, and not crashworthy, because it lacked air bags. In 

Kitts, plaintiff alleged that the car was defective and unreasonably dangerous because the manufacturer failed to utilize available technology, i.e., air bags, which would have prevented the 

death of plaintiff'sdecedent. 

4 The Richart defendant moved for partial summary judgment on 

the additional ground that the Safety Act and Federal Motor 

Vehicle Safety Standard 208 impliedly preempt plaintiff's air bag 

claim. The Kitts defendant moved for partial summary judgment on 

the additional ground that it owed no duty to the decedent under 

New Mexico law. Due to our disposition of the preemption issue, 

we need not reach Kitts' second ground. See discussion infra. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-2517 Document: 01019957887 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 4 
motions, each plaintiff argued that its claim was a common law 

.... ___ ,.._. tor.t.~cJ.a-im .. expressly.,sav.ed.by.,sect.i.on 13.97,(c)-of,, the.Bafety Act. 

See 15 u.s.c. § 1397(c) (1982). 5 The district courts reached 

opposite conclusions: The trial court in Kitts held that the 

Safety Act preempts plaintiff's air bag claim; the trial court in 

Richart held that the Safety Act does not preempt plaintiff's air 

bag claim. 

We conclude that the Safety Act preempts plaintiff's· air bag 

claim. See Wood v. General Motors Corp., 865 F.2d 395 (1st Cir. 

1988). For our purposes, Wood is almost identical to the cases 

before us: the plaintiff alleged under state law that the automobile manufactured by the defendant was defective because it was 

equipped with safety belts. rather than air bags or. another passive 

.restraint system(~, automatic safety belts). The defendant 

moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Safety Act and 

FMVSS 208 promulgated under the Act preempt plaintiff's claim. 

In Wood, the First Circuit rejected an express preemption 

claim, but held that section 1392(d) of the Safety Act and FMVSS 

208 impliedly preempt plaintiff's passive restraint claim. The 

Court found that 

5 Section 1397(c) states: "Compliance with any Federal motor 

vehicle safety standard issued under this subchapter does not 

exempt any person from any liability under common law." 15 u.s.c. 

§ 1397 ( C) ( 1982). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 87-2517 Document: 01019957887 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 5 
Congress's purposes, as revealed in the Safety Act and 

in the legislative history, plainly imply a preemptive ___ intent. 

Such an action is •••. impliedly preempted because it 

would effectively circumvent section 1392(d)'s prohibition of nonidentical state standards covering the same 

aspect of performance as a federal safety standard. 

Allowing a common law action holding manufacturers liable for failing to install air bags in motor vehicles 

would be tantamount to establishing a conflicting safety 

standard that necessarily encroaches upon the goal of 

uniformity specifically set forth by Congress in this 

area. 

Id. at 402 (emphasis in original). Because we believe Wood 

directly addresses and correctly resolves the issue before us, we 

follow the general principles articulated in Wood and adopt the 

implied preemption rule of the First Circuit. 

In view of our determination that the Safety Act preempts 

plaintiff's air bag claim, we affirm the trial court's grant of 

partial summary judgment to the defendant in Kitts and reverse the 

trial court's denial of partial summary judgment to the defendant 

in Richart. We also direct the trial court in Richart to enter 

partial summary judgment for the defendant. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 87-2517 Document: 01019957887 Date Filed: 05/19/1989 Page: 6