Court Opinion

ID: 9706339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:41:04.46145+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:21.737840
License: Public Domain

TOM GRAY, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The events of this case are tragic. But the state law crashworthiness design claims being made by the plaintiffs against the manufacturer of the bus are pre-empt-ed by federal law. And in recognition of the benefits of a single regulatory entity for all states in the United States, the expanse of preemption is widening. See Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 128 S.Ct. 999, 1011, 169 L.Ed.2d 892, 906-907 (2008) (tort claims challenging safety & effectiveness of catheter); Carden v. General Motors Corp., 509 F.3d 227, 230-232 (5th Cir.2007) (tort claims challenging design of seat belts); BIC Pen Corp. v. Carter, 251 S.W.3d 500, 504-509 (Tex.2008) (common law challenge of design defect of BIC lighter). See also Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Black 116 S.W.3d 745 (Tex.2003) (challenge of airline passenger boarding procedures). The judgment of the trial court should be reversed and rendered.
I respectfully dissent.