Doomes v. Best Transit Corp.
958 N.E.2d 1183 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act's 'saving clause' preserves state common-law tort claims, and federal motor vehicle safety standards that are silent on a particular safety feature do not impliedly preempt such claims unless the silence is part of a significant and deliberate federal regulatory objective.
Facts:
- A bus owned by Best Transit Corp. was returning from a visit to a correctional facility with approximately 21 passengers.
- The bus chassis was manufactured by Ford Motor Company, and its construction was completed by Warrick Industries, Inc., which had modified the chassis by extending its length.
- The bus was equipped with a seatbelt for the driver, Wagner M. Alcivar, but did not have seatbelts for any of the passengers.
- While traveling at approximately 60 miles per hour, the driver, Alcivar, dozed off.
- The bus veered across the highway, encountered a median strip and embankment, and rolled over several times.
- Multiple passengers, including Gloria Doomes, Ana Jiminian, and others, sustained injuries in the accident.
- The passengers alleged their injuries were caused or enhanced by the absence of passenger seatbelts and the improper weight distribution from the chassis modification.
Procedural Posture:
- Injured passengers, including Gloria Doomes and Ana Jiminian, sued bus owner Best Transit Corp. and bus manufacturer Warrick Industries, Inc., among others, in New York Supreme Court (a trial court).
- Warrick moved to preclude evidence regarding the lack of seatbelts, arguing federal law preempted the claims, but the court reserved decision.
- A jury found Warrick liable for, among other things, breaching the warranty of fitness by failing to install passenger seatbelts.
- After plaintiffs stipulated to a reduction in damages, judgments were entered against the defendants.
- Warrick, as appellant, appealed to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment against Warrick, holding that the plaintiffs' seatbelt claims were preempted by federal law and that evidence for a separate weight distribution claim was insufficient.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, were granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and its implementing regulations, which do not require passenger seatbelts in buses with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds, preempt state common-law tort claims alleging negligence and breach of warranty for failing to install such seatbelts?
Opinions:
Majority - Jones, J.
No, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act does not preempt state common-law claims for failure to install passenger seatbelts. The court found no express, field, or conflict preemption. Express preemption is negated by the Act's 'saving clause' (49 USC § 30103 [e]), which explicitly preserves common-law liability. Field preemption fails because the saving clause demonstrates Congress's intent to allow for state participation through tort law. Finally, there is no conflict preemption because it was not impossible for the manufacturer to install seatbelts while complying with federal standards, and the state law claim does not stand as an obstacle to a 'significant objective' of the federal regulation. Unlike in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., the regulatory silence on passenger seatbelts for large buses did not reflect a deliberate federal policy to provide a choice or to forbid them. Citing Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., the court found no evidence of preemptive intent in the regulatory history, concluding that the federal standards merely set a minimum, which state tort law could supplement.
Dissenting - Pigott, J.
Yes, the state common-law claims are preempted because they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of the federal regulatory scheme. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) made a conscious and deliberate policy judgment to distinguish between large buses (over 10,000 lbs), for which it did not require passenger seatbelts, and small buses, for which it did. This was not regulatory silence but an intentional decision based on safety, cost, and practicability. Allowing a state tort claim to succeed effectively forces manufacturers of large buses to comply with the standard for small buses, thereby undermining NHTSA's expert judgment and frustrating the federal objective of a uniform national safety standard.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of implied conflict preemption in the context of federal motor vehicle safety standards. By distinguishing Geier and aligning with Williamson, the court reinforces the principle that federal silence on a safety feature does not automatically immunize manufacturers from state tort liability. The ruling establishes that preemption requires clear evidence that the federal agency's inaction was a deliberate regulatory choice intended to be exclusive. This holding places a greater burden on manufacturers to justify not including safety features that exceed federal minimums, as they remain exposed to common-law claims that can supplement federal standards.
Unlock the full brief for Doomes v. Best Transit Corp.