Opinion ID: 1743765
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: other courts

Text: Furthermore, the weight of case law supports our conclusion that Standard 108, as written in 1986, does not impliedly preempt common-law claims about insufficient trailer conspicuity. The leading case is Buzzard v. Roadrunner Trucking, Inc., 966 F.2d 777 (3d Cir.1992). In Buzzard, the Third Circuit anticipated the Supreme Court's Geier analysis and held that the Safety Act does not expressly preempt common-law claims. Buzzard, 966 F.2d at 781. The Third Circuit also held that the Safety Act may impliedly preempt such claims if they actually conflict with the federal statute or regulation. See Buzzard, 966 F.2d at 781. The Buzzard court noted that it had previously determined, for the same reason Geier later articulated, that no-airbag common-law claims did conflict with the Safety Act and Standard 208. Buzzard, 966 F.2d at 781 (discussing Pokorny v. Ford Motor Co., 902 F.2d 1116, 1123 (3d Cir.1990)). But, unlike the no-airbag cases, the Buzzard court then determined that a common-law claim seeking additional conspicuity safety equipment did not conflict with the Safety Act or Standard 108: Encouraging manufacturers to act in a way that increases safety does not frustrate the primary purpose of the Safety Act. Nor does it make it impossible to comply with both federal and state law, as it does not suggest that illumination equipment mandated by state common law be used instead of that required by federal law, but only in addition to that specified in Standard 108. To the extent Buzzard can show there is other equipment that increases conspicuity without reducing the effect of the required equipment, his action does not actually conflict with the Safety Act or Standard 108. So limited, actions like Buzzard's aid the development of feasible lighting systems that improve on the illumination provided by compliance with Standard 108 and thereby aid federal law in developing illumination design standards to meet the needs of modern motorists. Buzzard, 966 F.2d at 785 (footnote omitted); see also Harris v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 234 F.3d 398, 403 (8th Cir.2000) (Standard 108 before 1992 did not impliedly preempt state tort claims imposing heightened conspicuity requirements); Pokorny v. Ford Motor Co., 902 F.2d 1116, 1122 (3d Cir.1990) (the Safety Act does not impliedly preempt common-law action unless common-law claim presents an actual, direct conflict with the statute's scheme); Swope v. STI Transit Co., 796 F.Supp. 160, 164 (E.D.Pa.1992) (Standard 108 did not preempt common-law claims arising from a 1988 accident); Derby v. Brenner Tank, Inc., 187 Wis.2d 244, 522 N.W.2d 274, 276 (1994) (former Standard 108 did not preempt common-law conspicuity claims). Great Dane relies on Crowe v. Fleming, 749 F.Supp. 1135 (S.D.Ga.1990), to support its implied preemption argument. In Crowe, the district court ruled that Standard 108 impliedly preempted a plaintiff's claim that the defendant's trailer should have been equipped with improved reflective materials. 749 F.Supp. at 1137. However, Buzzard explicitly disavowed Crowe. 966 F.2d at 785-86. And, as Buzzard correctly points out, the Crowe court improperly assumed that the Supreme Court's deciding that Standard 208 impliedly preempts no-air bag claims necessarily requires a determination that Standard 108 likewise preempts a common-law conspicuity claims. Buzzard, 966 F.2d at 785-86 (citing Crowe, 749 F.Supp. at 1139-41); see also Swope, 796 F.Supp. at 164 (rejecting the analysis in Crowe that led the court there to conclude that the common-law conspicuity claims are impliedly preempted); Derby, 522 N.W.2d at 276-77 (adopting reasoning in Buzzard to conclude that Standard 108 does not impliedly preempt common-law conspicuity claims). Great Dane also relies on Lady v. Neal Glaser Marine, Inc., 228 F.3d 598 (5th Cir.2000), in which the Fifth Circuit examined a federal regulation's preemptive effect on a tort claim that a manufacturer should have equipped its boat with a propeller guard. The court reviewed the history of the decision by the agency regulating boat safety that, as a substantive matter, it was not appropriate to impose a propeller guard requirement. Lady, 228 F.3d at 612-15. The court then concluded that the agency's affirmative decision took on the character of a regulation. Lady, 228 F.3d at 615. Accordingly, the court held that the plaintiff's common-law claim that the boat manufacturer must provide a propeller guard presented an obstacle to and frustrated the agency's flexible approach toward propeller guards. Lady, 228 F.3d at 614-15. In reaching its holding, the Lady court recognized that the plaintiff's common-law claims would effectively require boat manufacturers to install propeller guards, directly contravening the agency's policy against mandating such a device. Lady, 228 F.3d at 614-15. Thus, a distinction exists between Lady and this case. Here, Standard 108 clearly sets forth a minimum standard, rather than stating what is not required, thereby allowing state tort claims to require additional equipment so long as this additional equipment does not conflict with the minimum safety standards.