In twist, Supreme Court allows seatbelt lawsuit

AP Photo

One of the big raps on the Roberts Court is that it's too sympathetic to Big Business. Today, we got a decision that counters that storyline.

Ever since the Supreme Court made a conservative turn in 2006, critics have pointed to rulings that shut the courthouse door to the little guy--especially the little guy who's trying to sue a giant corporation, such as a manufacturer of medical devices or drugs. In those cases, the Court has said product liability lawsuits are barred under federal law. The rationale is that since federal regulators had approved the devices and the drugs in the first place, the companies aren't liable for defective designs.

What critics don't mention is that some of the liberal justices have been on board with some of those decisions favoring the corporations. And today, the Court showed once again that simplistic narratives aren't always accurate. In a unanimous decision, the justices paved the way for a lawsuit against Mazda Motor Corp., rejecting the company's argument that it should not be subjected to lawsuits over its failure to install shoulder belts in the back seats of its minivans.

The case came about in 2002, when a Mazda minivan crashed and killed a passenger in the back seat. The girl was wearing a lap-only seat belt--the 1993 van didn't have shoulder belts for the back seat.

Her parents, who were in the front seat, were wearing lap AND shoulder belts, and they survived. They sued Mazda, saying the automaker should have put lap and shoulder belts in the back seat too, and that if the van had those seats, their daughter would have survived the crash.

Mazda fought the suit, saying its minivans met all federal safety regulations in effect at the time, and so the family's lawsuit could not go forward. A California appeals court agreed.

But the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Breyer, said those federal safety regulations don't bar lawsuits over lap-only seat belts. Justice Breyer said there was no proof the government wanted to preempt these types of lawsuits back then or today--and he noted that the Administration had argued the lawsuits should go forward.

The regulations have changed since the 2002 crash, and new cars now have lap and shoulder belts in the back seats. But older vehicles on the roads--and the administration says there are about 1 million of them--have the lap-only belts.

[sjc_1]

Does federal law require seat belts in the back of minivans? If so, they should not have been sold here, if not then there is NO case....period.

[tsigili]

Eight full years, to even get a fair hearing for justice? Par for the course, from our absolutely horrendous justice system.

[tsigili]

They can legislate and mandate, all day long, and there is no amount of "safety equipment", that will compensate for bad driving......and that's the bottom line.

[unnamed6]

This is another example of a rediculous suit! That is just crazy! If a lap and shoulder belt was such a big deal to these parents then they should have purchased a newer vehicle with the lap and shoulder belts when the laws changed. I do feel for these parents but those lap belts were plenty safe for our some of us and our parents and many generations before us. I am sorry for the loss these parents must deal with but quit placing the blame on companies that had nothing to do with the crash. Did the seat belt malfunction? Then you would have a case, only then!

[smitvict]

Maybe GM should consider retroactively putting air bags in 1957 Chevys. I mean, granted, the vehicle met safety requirements when it was built, but why should that matter?