1The plaintiffs are Lisa Ann Carden, individually, and as an

heir of Alexa Lee Wilson; Kevin Stillwell and Pamela Stillwell,

individually and as next friends of Emily Stillwell, a minor; and

Ronald Lee Wilson, II, individually and as an heir of Alexa Lee

Wilson.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

LISA ANN CARDEN, Individually, §

and for and on Behalf of Those §

Entitled to Recover for the §

Wrongful Death of ALEXA LEE §

WILSON, ET AL., §

§

Plaintiffs, §

§

VS. § NO. 4:05-CV-549-A

§ (Consolidated with No.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, § 4:06-CV-356-A)

§

Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

and

ORDER

After having considered the motion for partial summary

judgment filed by defendant, General Motors Corporation, ("GM")

the response thereto of plaintiffs,1 GM's reply, the pleadings,

the entire summary judgment record, and applicable authorities,

the court has concluded that such motion should be granted.

This is a products liability case arising from a motor

vehicle collision that occurred in June 2004 causing the death of

the daughter of two of the plaintiffs and causing injuries to

other plaintiffs. The daughter and injured plaintiffs were

occupying a 1999 Pontiac Grand Am automobile designed,

manufactured, and distributed by GM. Plaintiffs claim that the

Grand Am was defectively designed and manufactured by GM in part

because the center-rear seatbelt system did not have a three-

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00549-A Document 116-2 Filed 09/29/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 1059
2Also persuasive are the state court decisions in Heinricher

v. Volva Car Corp., 809 N.E.2d 1094 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004), and

Hernandez-Gomez v. Volkswagen of America, 32 P.3d 424 (Ariz. App.

Div. 2, 2001). 

2

point lap/shoulder belt and retractor. GM has moved for summary

judgment on the ground that the claims alleging defectiveness in

the center-rear seatbelt system are preempted by Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standards, including FMVSS 208. 

So far as the court can determine, the United States Court

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not issued an opinion that

would control the outcome. However, the court is persuaded by

the reasoning of other courts that have dealt with the precise,

or similar, issues that are presented by the summary judgment

papers in this case. In particular, the court has found

persuasive the opinions of the Supreme Court in Greier v.

American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000), of the Eleventh

Circuit in Griffith v. General Motors Corp., 303 F.3d 1276 (11th

Cir. 2002); James v. Mazda Motor Corp., 222 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir.

2000); and Irving v. Mazda Motor Corp., 136 F.3d 764 (11th Cir.

1998), of the Seventh Circuit in Hurley v. Motor Coach

Industries, Inc., 222 F.3d 377 (7th Cir. 2000), and of the Fourth

Circuit in Moser v. Ford Motor Co., 28 Fed. Appx. 168 (4th Cir.

2001).2 

The court has concluded that the seatbelt-system claims at

issue are preempted. The reasons why the claims are preempted

are so clearly expressed in those opinions that the court will

not take the time to repeat them here. The preemption applies to

the claims of plaintiffs that are alleged in paragraphs 4.04,

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00549-A Document 116-2 Filed 09/29/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 1060
3

4.05, 4.06, 4.07, 4.08, 4.09, 6.02, 6.03, 6.04, 6.05, and 6.06 of

Plaintiffs' First Consolidated and Amended Complaint and to any

other claim in the pleading that urges, in general language, a

cause of action based on any of the alleged defects described in

the specifically enumerated paragraphs above. 

Therefore,

The court ORDERS that GM's motion for partial summary

judgment be, and is hereby, granted.

The court further ORDERS that all preempted claims, as

described above, be, and are hereby, dismissed.

SIGNED September 29, 2006.

 /s/ John McBryde 

JOHN McBRYDE

United States District Judge

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00549-A Document 116-2 Filed 09/29/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 1061