Opinion ID: 72726
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An argument made for the first

Text: time on appeal. As we understand the record, Plaintiff’s claim in district court was not that a differently designed two-point system with a manual lap belt would have been without 4 defect. On the contrary, Plaintiff based If a claim was asserted that two-point 4 systems (such as that installed in the Mazda MX-6) were not defective in general, but that the specific design selected by Mazda for its two-point system was unreasonably dangerous, preemption would be less clear. 22 her claim on the allegation that the option provided in the standards represented inherently a defective design. “Plaintiff allege[d] that the option selected by Mazda is defective.” Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 12. Plaintiff, however, seems to argue for the first time in this appeal that different, nondefective designs could have been selected by Defendants under the same regulatory option: automatic 23 shoulder belt with manual lap belt. Thus, Plaintiff now argues that she is not challenging Defendants’ choice of a regulatory option. This argument differs from Plaintiff’s argument in the district 5 court. Too often our colleagues on the 5 The option selected by Defendants permitted passive protection for frontal crashes -- either air bags or passive shoulder harnesses -- plus lap belts for lateral crashes. The only alternative designs put forward by Plaintiff in the district court were three-point seat belts, fully automatic belts, and restraint systems with more elaborate warning systems. These alternatives do not fall within the regulatory option exercised by Defendants. A three-point seat belt 24 system would have to be either fully passive (for example, the seat belt is attached to the car door and is positioned upon closing the door) or fully manual (requiring passenger action to position the restraint), which would place that system in either of the two options not selected by Defendants. The option exercised by Defendants allowed for a partially passive, partially manual restraint system. For the same reason, a fully automatic belt system also would not fall under the same option selected by Defendants. Finally, the warning systems proposed by Plaintiff would have been different from the warning system specifications set out for the option selected by Defendants, with which specifications Defendants undisputably complied. In the district court, Plaintiff stated that she was “not suggesting that the options be taken away; rather, Plaintiff alleges that the option selected by Mazda is 25 district courts complain that the appellate cases about which they read were not the cases argued before them. We cannot allow Plaintiff to argue a different case from the case she presented to the district court. Because Plaintiff failed to make this argument in the district court, we decline defective.” Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment at 12 (emphasis added). To sharpen this point more, Plaintiff went so far as to challenge the appropriateness of FMVSS 208. See id. at 2 (“[A]lthough the restraint system may comply with the minimum standards, the standards are inadequate and should not impede the progress towards improved designs.”). 26 to consider it here. See Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526-27 (11th Cir. 1994).