Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 967.0

529US3

Unit: $U62

[09-26-01 12:54:02] PAGES PGT: OPIN

892

GEIER v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.

Stevens, J., dissenting

tive for the use of such technologies, the standard provided
that a vehicle equipped with an airbag or other nonbelt sys-
tem would count as 1.5 vehicles for the purpose of determin-
ing compliance with the required 10, 25, or 40% minimum
passive restraint requirement during the phase-in period.
49 CFR § 571.208, S4.1.3.4(a)(1) (1998). With one oblique ex-
ception,5 there is no mention, either in the text of the ﬁnal
standard or in the accompanying comments, of the possibility
that the risk of potential tort liability would provide an in-
centive for manufacturers to install airbags. Nor is there
any other speciﬁc evidence of an intent to preclude common-
law tort actions.

II

Before discussing the pre-emption issue, it is appropriate
to note that there is a vast difference between a rejection of
Honda’s threshold arguments in favor of federal pre-emption
and a conclusion that petitioners ultimately would prevail
I express no opinion on
on their common-law tort claims.
the possible merit, or lack of merit, of those claims.
I do
observe, however, that even though good-faith compliance
with the minimum requirements of Standard 208 would not
provide Honda with a complete defense on the merits,6 I as-

systems such as airbags and passive interiors.”
(1984).

49 Fed. Reg. 29000

5 In response to a comment that the manufacturers were likely to use
the cheapest system to comply with the new standard, the Secretary
stated that she believed “that competition, potential liability for any deﬁ-
cient systems[,] and pride in one’s product would prevent this.”

Ibid.

6 Wood v. General Motors Corp., 865 F. 2d 395, 417 (CA1 1988) (collect-
ing cases). The result would be different, of course, if petitioners had
brought common-law tort claims challenging Honda’s compliance with a
mandatory minimum federal standard—e. g., claims that a 1999 Honda was
negligently and defectively designed because it was equipped with airbags
as required by the current version of Standard 208. Restatement (Third)
of Torts: General Principles § 14(b), and Comment g (Discussion Draft,
Apr. 5, 1999) (“If the actor’s adoption [or rejection] of a precaution would
require the actor to violate a statute, the actor cannot be found negligent
for failing to adopt [or reject] that precaution”); cf. ante, at 871–872 (dis-