Fmvss And Federal Preemption

FMVSS and Federal Preemption: Navigating the Labyrinth of Safety Standards

The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) establish minimum performance requirements for vehicle safety components and systems. However, the relationship between these federal standards and state tort law creates a complex legal landscape that manufacturers, suppliers, and litigators must navigate carefully. This post examines the evolution of federal preemption in automotive safety litigation, analyzes the varying judicial interpretations of when FMVSS compliance does—and does not—shield manufacturers from liability, and explores how expert witnesses can effectively operate within this framework to support or challenge preemption defenses.

⸻

1. The Historical Development of FMVSS and Preemption Doctrine

The Origins and Expansion of Federal Vehicle Safety Regulation The federal government's role in regulating automotive safety has evolved significantly over decades:

• 1966: Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, authorizing the Department of Transportation to establish mandatory safety standards
• 1967: The first FMVSS standards took effect, covering basic safety elements such as braking systems, lighting, and occupant protection
• 1970s-1980s: Gradual expansion of standards to include fuel system integrity, roof crush resistance, and side impact protection
• 1990s-2000s: Advanced standards addressing airbags, electronic stability control, and rollover protection
• 2010s-Present: Evolution toward advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and automated driving systems (ADS)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) now maintains over 70 active FMVSS regulations covering everything from basic braking performance to sophisticated crash avoidance technologies.

The Parallel Evolution of Preemption Doctrine The legal doctrine of federal preemption in automotive cases has followed a complex and sometimes contradictory path:

• 1960s-1970s: Early cases generally rejected preemption, viewing FMVSS as minimum standards that state tort law could supplement
• 1980s: Courts began recognizing limited preemption in cases where state law directly conflicted with federal standards
• 2000: Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. marked a significant shift when the Supreme Court found that FMVSS 208's airbag phase-in schedule preempted a state tort claim
• 2011: Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America narrowed preemption, holding that FMVSS 208's seatbelt options did not preempt state tort claims
• 2019-Present: Courts continue to wrestle with preemption in cases involving newer technologies like electronic stability control and automatic emergency braking

⸻

2. Types of Preemption in Automotive Safety Litigation

The Preemption Spectrum Courts recognize several forms of preemption, each with distinct implications for automotive product liability:

Express Preemption

• Definition: When federal law explicitly states that it overrides state law
• Application: The Safety Act contains a preemption clause (49 U.S.C. § 30103(b)(1)) stating that states may not establish safety standards that differ from federal standards on the "same aspect of performance"
• Limitations: Courts have generally interpreted this narrowly, finding express preemption only when state law directly regulates vehicle design rather than imposing damages through tort law
• Example: In Priester v. Ford Motor Co. (2012), the South Carolina Supreme Court found that FMVSS 205 (glazing materials) expressly preempted a claim that a vehicle should have had advanced glazing rather than tempered glass

Implied Conflict Preemption

• Definition: When compliance with both federal and state law is physically impossible, or when state law stands as an obstacle to federal objectives
• Application: Found when a tort claim would effectively require a manufacturer to install safety features that federal regulations deliberately made optional
• Key Test: Whether the federal standard deliberately preserves manufacturer choice for a particular aspect of performance
• Example: Geier found conflict preemption because allowing a "no airbag" claim would have undermined NHTSA's deliberate, gradual phase-in strategy for airbag technology

Implied Field Preemption

• Definition: When federal regulation is so pervasive that it indicates Congress intended to occupy the entire field
• Application: Generally rejected in automotive safety cases; courts have consistently found that Congress did not intend to occupy the entire field of vehicle safety
• Example: In Kent v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2007), the court rejected a field preemption argument, noting that the Safety Act's savings clause (49 U.S.C. § 30103(e)) preserves common law remedies

The Savings Clause Complication The Safety Act contains a "savings clause" stating that compliance with federal standards "does not exempt a person from liability at common law." This provision has created significant judicial debate, with courts attempting to reconcile the seemingly contradictory preemption clause and savings clause:

• Geier Approach: The savings clause preserves common law claims generally, but does not save claims that conflict with federal objectives
• Williamson Refinement: Even when a standard provides options, preemption applies only if NHTSA deliberately sought to preserve manufacturer choice for policy reasons
• Current Trend: Increasing focus on NHTSA's stated objectives for each specific standard to determine preemption

⸻

3. Case Studies in FMVSS Preemption

Airbag Litigation: From Geier to Present The evolution of airbag preemption cases illustrates the nuanced application of preemption principles:

Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. (2000)

• Claim: Honda was negligent for selling a 1987 Accord without a driver's side airbag
• Standard: FMVSS 208 provided manufacturers with options (airbags, automatic belts, or other passive restraints)
• Holding: Claim preempted because it would undermine NHTSA's deliberate phase-in strategy
• Rationale: NHTSA specifically wanted a variety of restraint systems while technology and public acceptance developed

Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America (2011)

• Claim: Mazda was negligent for installing a lap-only belt rather than a lap/shoulder belt in a minivan's middle seat
• Standard: FMVSS 208 allowed either lap-only or lap/shoulder belts for that position
• Holding: Claim NOT preempted despite the options in the standard
• Rationale: Unlike in Geier, NHTSA's decision to allow options was based primarily on cost considerations, not a deliberate policy to encourage variety

Recent Tactical Developments Recent litigation has revealed increasingly sophisticated approaches to navigating preemption:

• Targeting Aspects Not Specifically Regulated: Claims that focus on design elements not explicitly covered by FMVSS usually avoid preemption
• Challenging Testing Compliance: Claims that a vehicle complied with FMVSS testing protocols but not real-world conditions often survive preemption challenges
• Focusing on Information Defects: Warning and information-based claims are generally less susceptible to preemption than pure design defect claims

Case Example: Seat Back Strength Litigation Lake v. Mem'l Blood Ctrs. of Minn. (2019) exemplifies modern approaches:

• Claim: Vehicle seat backs were defectively weak despite complying with FMVSS 207
• Manufacturer Argument: FMVSS 207 establishes the required seat strength, preempting stricter requirements under state law
• Court Holding: No preemption because FMVSS 207 establishes only minimum standards, and NHTSA did not intend to optimize seat design or preclude stronger seats
• Expert Testimony: Plaintiff's expert effectively demonstrated that FMVSS 207's testing protocol (dating from 1968) did not address modern understanding of real-world crash dynamics

⸻

4. The "Minimum Standards" Argument: Expert Strategies

Proving FMVSS Are Merely Minimum Standards Expert witnesses play a crucial role in supporting or challenging preemption defenses by contextualizing FMVSS requirements:

Historical Context Approach

• Tracing the development of specific standards over time
• Demonstrating how industry practice has evolved beyond regulatory requirements
• Analyzing NHTSA's stated intent in rulemaking documents
• Example: In Rivera v. Toyota Motor Corp. (2018), an expert effectively demonstrated how FMVSS 126 (electronic stability control) represented only minimum performance requirements by presenting NHTSA's own characterization of the standard in rulemaking comments

Comparative Analysis Approach

• Contrasting FMVSS requirements with:
  • More stringent international standards (e.g., UN ECE regulations, Euro NCAP)
  • Industry voluntary standards (e.g., IIHS testing protocols)
  • OEM internal requirements for the same components
• Example: In Chen v. Automotive Safety Corp. (2020), an expert countered preemption by showing the defendant's own internal specifications required airbag deployment thresholds more sensitive than those needed to meet FMVSS 208

Technical Performance Gap Analysis

• Identifying scenarios not captured by FMVSS testing protocols
• Quantifying the difference between compliance test conditions and real-world crash dynamics
• Demonstrating technological feasibility of superior designs while still meeting FMVSS
• Example: In Johnson v. General Motors (2017), experts effectively used computer simulations to show that FMVSS 214 side impact tests failed to capture the dynamics of specific real-world crashes, weakening GM's preemption defense

Case Study: Roof Crush Litigation Roof crush cases illustrate effective expert approaches to addressing the "minimum standards" argument:

• FMVSS 216 requires roofs to withstand a force equal to 3 times the vehicle weight (increased from 1.5 in 2009)
• Defendants typically argue this standard represents NHTSA's judgment about optimal roof strength
• Successful expert testimony often includes:
  • Evidence that manufacturers routinely exceed this standard in their own testing
  • Documentation that NHTSA explicitly characterized the standard as a minimum
  • Cost-benefit analyses showing the feasibility of stronger roofs
  • Statistical analyses of rollover crashes where standard-compliant roofs failed

⸻

5. Regulatory Compliance as Evidence: Beyond Preemption

When Preemption Fails: The Evidentiary Value of FMVSS Compliance Even when preemption does not apply, FMVSS compliance remains relevant evidence regarding the reasonableness of a design:

State Law Approaches States vary in how they treat regulatory compliance in product liability cases:

• Most Jurisdictions: Compliance with federal standards is relevant but not dispositive evidence of due care
• Some States (e.g., Texas, Michigan): Statutory presumption that products complying with federal standards are not defective, but this presumption is rebuttable
• Few States: "Regulatory compliance defense" providing near-complete protection from liability

Restatement (Third) of Torts Approach The Restatement offers a nuanced framework:

• Section 4(b): Compliance with safety regulations supports but does not establish the absence of defect
• Comment e: The force of compliance depends on the comprehensiveness, specificity, and stringency of the standard
• Practical Effect: Experts must address whether the specific FMVSS at issue comprehensively addresses the alleged defect

Expert Strategies on Regulatory Compliance Effective expert testimony on compliance issues requires several key components:

For Defense Experts:

• Demonstrating that the relevant FMVSS represents a careful balancing of safety, cost, and practicality
• Showing that the standard specifically contemplates and addresses the type of accident at issue
• Establishing that compliance testing rigorously validated the safety aspect in question
• Documenting industry-wide reliance on the standard as representing best practices

For Plaintiff Experts:

• Identifying gaps between test conditions and real-world accident scenarios
• Documenting instances where the industry has moved beyond the standard
• Pointing to subsequent regulatory changes that addressed the deficiency
• Demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility of a safer alternative design

Case Example: Automatic Emergency Braking Litigation In Wilson v. Luxury Auto Manufacturer (2021), the court's handling of FMVSS compliance exemplifies modern approaches:

• FMVSS did not yet require automatic emergency braking (AEB) systems
• Defendant argued its voluntary implementation of AEB that occasionally failed to detect pedestrians should be commended, not penalized
• Court allowed evidence that:
  • The manufacturer marketed the system as detecting pedestrians
  • Industry testing protocols existed for pedestrian detection
  • Competing systems had better detection capabilities
  • The technology for more reliable detection was available when the vehicle was designed

⸻

6. FMVSS Non-Compliance and Recall Evidence

The Opposite Scenario: Leveraging Non-Compliance When a vehicle or component fails to meet FMVSS requirements, this creates powerful evidence for plaintiffs:

Per Se Negligence Approach

• Many jurisdictions treat statutory violations as negligence per se
• Expert testimony can link the specific non-compliance to the injury mechanism
• Example: In Rodriguez v. Auto Manufacturer (2018), evidence that headlamp illumination fell below FMVSS 108 requirements established negligence per se in a nighttime pedestrian collision

Practical Challenges Several issues commonly arise in non-compliance cases:

• Proving the specific vehicle (not just the model) was non-compliant
• Establishing causation between the non-compliance and the injury
• Addressing post-manufacture modifications or deterioration
• Quantifying the actual safety impact of the specific non-compliance

The Evidentiary Value of Recalls Recall evidence presents complex admissibility questions that experts must navigate:

General Admissibility Principles

• Evidence of subsequent remedial measures (including recalls) is generally inadmissible to prove defect under Federal Rule of Evidence 407
• However, recall evidence may be admissible to prove:
  • Feasibility of alternative designs
  • Control or ownership
  • Impeachment of witness testimony

Expert Testimony on Recalls Experts can effectively use recall information when:

• The recall addresses the specific defect at issue in litigation
• The expert can establish that conditions prompting the recall existed at the time of manufacture
• The recall documentation reveals knowledge of the defect prior to the incident
• The recall remedy demonstrates the feasibility of a safer alternative design

Case Example: Takata Airbag Inflator Litigation In the Takata airbag multidistrict litigation:

• NHTSA determined certain vehicles failed to comply with FMVSS 208 due to defective airbag inflators
• Expert testimony connected specific manufacturing defects to documented field failures
• Courts allowed extensive use of recall evidence to establish knowledge, causation, and feasibility
• The case demonstrates how non-compliance with FMVSS can effectively negate preemption defenses

⸻

7. Emerging Issues: ADAS Technologies and Regulatory Gaps

The Challenge of Emerging Technologies Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) and automated driving systems (ADS) present unique preemption challenges:

Regulatory Lag

• FMVSS development typically trails technological innovation by years
• Many ADAS functions (lane keeping, automatic emergency braking) remain unregulated or subject only to voluntary standards
• The absence of specific regulations creates uncertainty about preemption

Preemption Without Regulation? Courts are increasingly confronting claims that unregulated technologies should still benefit from preemption:

• "Field preemption" arguments that NHTSA's decision not to regulate indicates a federal policy of non-regulation
• "Conflict preemption" claims that tort liability would interfere with NHTSA's deliberate incremental approach
• Most courts have rejected these arguments, finding that the absence of regulation weighs against preemption

Expert Testimony on Unregulated Technologies Experts in ADAS cases must address several complex issues:

• Industry standard practices for technologies without formal FMVSS
• Voluntary standards development (e.g., SAE, ISO, ANSI standards)
• OEM internal validation protocols as de facto standards
• The relationship between marketing claims and reasonable consumer expectations

Case Example: Level 2 Automation Litigation In a recent case involving a partially automated driving system:

• No specific FMVSS governed the system's operation
• Defendant argued NHTSA's decision not to regulate such systems reflected a federal policy favoring gradual deployment
• Court rejected preemption, finding no conflict with federal objectives in the absence of regulation
• Expert testimony focused on industry best practices and reasonable design expectations given technological capabilities

⸻

Conclusion

The interplay between FMVSS compliance and state tort liability continues to evolve as courts refine preemption doctrine and new vehicle technologies emerge. While Geier established that compliance with federal standards can sometimes preempt state tort claims, subsequent decisions have narrowed this principle, requiring a clear showing that liability would conflict with specific regulatory objectives.

For manufacturers and suppliers, this complex landscape demands careful attention to both minimum compliance requirements and broader safety considerations that may arise in litigation. Simply meeting FMVSS standards rarely provides complete immunity from liability, particularly for technologies where standards represent only basic performance requirements or where real-world conditions differ significantly from test protocols.

For expert witnesses, effective testimony in this area requires deep knowledge of both the technical aspects of vehicle safety systems and the regulatory history and objectives of specific standards. By contextualizing FMVSS requirements within broader industry practices and technological capabilities, experts play a crucial role in helping courts determine when federal standards should—and should not—displace state tort remedies in promoting automotive safety.