Court Opinion

ID: 9641147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:24:01.639548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:35.416550
License: Public Domain

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, dissenting. The circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Pilkington North America, Inc., should be affirmed. Wagner has failed to show what duty, if any, Pilkington owed her. While the majority refers to the fundamental principle that the plaintiff in a negligence action must show that a duty was owed, it nonetheless fails to address whether that requirement has been met by the plaintiff in this case. The question of what duty, if any, is owed a plaintiff alleging negligence is always a question oflaw. Marlar v. Daniel, 368 Ark. 505, 247 S.W.3d 473 (2007). The crux of Wagner’s negligence and strict-liability claims is her assertion that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) 205 requires Pilkington to certify compliance with FM-VSS 205’s requirement to minimize ejections. This assertion is not borne out by the express language of FMVSS 205, which initially sets out the scope, purpose, and application of the standard: § 571.205 Standard No. 205, Glazing materials. SI.Scope. This standard specifies requirements for glazing materials for use in motor vehicles and motor-vehicle equipment. S2.Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce injuries resulting from impact to glazing surfaces, to ensure a necessary degree of transparency in motor vehicle windows for driver visibility, and to minimize the possibility of occupants being thrown through the vehicle windows in collisions. S3.Application. This standard applies to glazing materials for use in passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, buses, motorcycles, slide-in campers, and pickup covers designed to carry persons while in motion. 49 C.F.R. § 571.205 (1999). The plain language of FMVSS 205 reflects that Wagner’s alleged “requirement” to minimize ejections is in fact one of the “purposes” of the standard. This purpose along with the other two listed purposes — to reduce injuries from impact with glazing surfaces and to ensure visibility — may in effect be at cross purposes, competing against each other. In other words, compliance with one purpose may be to the detriment of the other purposes. In any event, the certification requirements in FMVSS 205 relate to the standards or requirements set forth for glazing materials used in motor vehicles: S5.1.1 Glazing materials for use in motor vehicles, except as otherwise provided in this standard shall conform to the American National Standard “Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways” Z-26.1-1977, January 26, 1977, as supplemented by Z26.1a, July 3, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “ANS Z26”) .... 49 C.F.R. § 571.205 (1999). The requirements established in ANS Z26 include tests for light stability, luminous transmittance, humidity, exposure to tropical temperatures, various impact forces (ball, shot bag, dart), fracture characteristics, and abrasion resistance. See section 5, Test Specifications. Each group of tests listed in section 4, Application of Tests, is deemed adequate for determining the locations in the motor vehicle for which the various safety glazing materials that qualify under the code may be suitable. Thus, the certification under FMVSS 205 is verification of compliance with the applicable test specifications in section 5 of ANS Z26. Despite Wagner’s assertion to the contrary, there is no obligation under FMVSS 205 to certify that the windows comply with one “purpose” —■ to minimize ejection — to the exclusion of the other purposes, especially when to do so would conflict with the other competing purposes — to reduce injuries from impact with glazing surfaces and to ensure driver visibility. This conclusion is supported by section 2 of ANS Z26: 2.2 Degree of Safety. One safety glazing material may be superior for protection against one type of hazard, whereas another may be superior against another type. Since accident conditions are not standardized, no one type of safety glazing material can be shown to possess the maximum degree of safety under all conditions, against all conceivable hazards. American National Standard for Safety Code for Safety Glazing Materials for Glazing Motor Vehicles Operating on Land Highways, Z-26.1-1977 & Z-26.la-1980 (American National Standards Institute 1977 & 1980). In sum, the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards have never included the obligation or requirement that forms the basis of Wagner’s negligence and strict-liability claims against Pilkington. In June 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration declined to continue to examine “a potential requirement” of ejection mitigating glazing for side windows in passenger vehicles. See Withdrawal of Advance Notices of Proposed Rule-making, 67 Fed. Reg. 41365 0une 18, 2002). For these reasons, I must respectfully dissent. Wagner has failed to show that Pilkington had an obligation or duty under FMVSS 205 to certify anything other than its compliance with the standards set forth in ANS Z26. Wagner’s effort to transpose a “purpose” into a “requirement” contravenes the plain language of the federal regulation. Brown, J., joins this dissent.