Opinion ID: 2611859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Car's Crash Protection System Compliance with Standards

Text: For this 1981 model car, VW attempted to comply with one of the available options by designing a belt-type passive restraint system for the front-seat occupants. The design used an automatic two-point shoulder belt with no lap belt. In its motion for summary judgment, VW offered evidence that this restraint system satisfied Standard 208 and that a lap belt was not required to comply with option two. Finding that Plaintiff did not produce evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the question of compliance, the trial judge held that the car's passive restraint system satisfied Standard 208. The court concluded, therefore, that the Safety Act preempted Plaintiff's claim and granted VW's motion for summary judgment. [7] For purposes of this opinion, we assume that the trial judge correctly decided that the design in question complied with option two. Thus we address only the preemption issue.