PHOENIX (Legal Newsline) – Trial lawyers are celebrating a recent Arizona Supreme Court ruling that allows certain lawsuits against car-makers to move forward.
On March 1, the court reversed a lower court ruling and determined Melissa Varela’s claims against FCA US aren’t preempted by any National Highway Traffic Safety Administration rules. The case drew interest from the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, which filed an amicus brief in the case.
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety also submitted an amicus brief that was authored by Larry Coben of Anapol Weiss, a large personal injury firm.
The issue in the case was whether state law tort claims were preempted by federal rules by the NHTSB regarding failures to install automatic emergency breaking technology. The court found the NHTSB has not established “a policy objective” that would preempt Varela’s state law tort claims.
Varela was rear-ended in 2015 by a Jeep Grand Cherokee that didn’t have automatic emergency braking, also known as forward collision warning plus. That feature was an option on the Limited and Overland lines of Grand Cherokee and was standard on Summit and SRT lines.
Varela’s four-year-old daughter was killed in the collision. She sued FCA (Chrysler) for defective product design and defective product warning, among other claims, alleging the collision would have been less severe or altogether avoidable if it had installed AEB on the Grand Cherokee.
Chrysler convinced a trial court judge to toss the case by arguing the NHTSB had an implied guidance on vehicles like the Grand Cherokee that didn’t call for the automatic installation of AEB.
But the Court of Appeals, and now the state Supreme Court, found that isn’t the case.
“Nowhere in any of the four documents does the agency make such a claim of exclusive regulatory authority,” Justice Bill Montgomery wrote. “Instead, the published guidance acknowledges a continuing and collaborative role for states and explicitly encourages states to review tort liability in the automated vehicle and automated driving system contexts.”
Chrysler had argued NHTSB guidance published from 2016-2020 for automated driving systems asserted exclusive federal control over the rules. The company was right that the guidance strongly encouraged states to let the NHTSB alone regulate those systems, the court said, but the NHTSB also noted enforcement on its policies by states was “entirely voluntary, with no compliance requirement or enforcement mechanism.”
“On the whole, the published guidance fails to demonstrate any intent by the Agency to exercise an exclusive regulatory role in the area of automated vehicle and automated driving system testing, development, or deployment,” Justice Montgomery wrote.
“Likewise, the guidance, lacking the force of law and with no requirement for compliance or mechanism of enforcement, does not foreclose the traditional role of states in regulating tort liability.”
Valera’s attorneys will now get a chance to prove the Grand Cherokee’s design was dangerous.