Personal Injury Law

Supreme Court ruled that you can File a Suit Even if an Automaker Met all Safety Standards

Since all the automobile recalls recently, many Tennessee residents and people across the country have been concerned or cautious about their safety in their vehicles. Many automaker companies have updated their safety features to make consumers feel safer while driving. However, now the Supreme Court has made a ruling that you can file a lawsuit even if the automaker followed all the safety rules. If you are concerned about your vehicle safety or how this ruling may affect you and your vehicle then you should contact a Tennessee Automobile safety lawyer right away. They will answer any questions you may have and review your case to see if you may be entitled to any compensation.

According to this ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the Mazda automaker could face a lawsuit even if it met federal safety rules due to not having certain safety equipment in their vehicles. This ruling was made because of a 2002 death which involved a crash of a woman in the second row middle seat of a 1993 Mazda MPV. According to that case, Williamson was wearing the seat?s lap belt, but her family is filed a lawsuit claiming that Mazda was negligent for not equipping the middle seat with a three point lap and shoulder belt.

Federal rules only require these kinds of belts for the outboard seats but give Mazda the option of only a lap belt for the middle seat. The lawsuit states that Williamson was killed when her body was jackknifed around the lap belt. The Mazda automaker claims that it is immune to lawsuits because in 1989, the government gave them the option of a shoulder and lap belt or just a lap belt for the middle seat.

The Supreme Court ruled that the only way Mazda would be immune is if the "significant objective" of the federal regulation was to give auto manufacturers a choice of which seat belts to install.? The more important reason why the Department of Transportation did not require lap-and-shoulder belts for rear inner seats was that it thought that this requirement would not be cost-effective.? This ruling allowed the Williamson family to continue with their lawsuit against the Mazda automaker.

Full post as published by Tennessee Law Blog on February 25, 2011 (boomark / email).