Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, PREEMPTION—MOTOR VEHICLES—D.Kan.: Lack of installed optional safety systems did not equal design defect in semi-truck, (Jun 17, 2022)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Statements made by NHTSA did not reflect a federal regulatory objective sufficient to trigger implied obstacle preemption.

The estates of victims who were killed when a Freightliner semi-truck crashed into the back of their vehicles failed to establish that the semi-truck was defective by not having an optional collision warning system or automatic braking system installed, the federal district court in Kansas ruled. The court also rejected the estates’ failure to warn claim, finding that because the purchaser of the truck was familiar with both systems, he did not need to be warned of the dangers of failing to add those options. In addition, the court found that the claims were not preempted by federal law because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) had not conveyed an authoritative public policy on the use of those safety systems in commercial vehicles, despite public statements critical of the systems (Butler v. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, June 16, 2022, Robinson, J.).

Background. In 2014, the purchasing manager for Indian Creek Express, LCC, a trucking company, purchased ten Freightliner trucks for the company. He was aware that they could be equipped with a front collision warning system, which warns the driver of a potential threat of a crash with a vehicle in front of the truck. Two systems were available, one manufactured by On Guard System and one by VORAD System. The purchasing manager, who had a commercial driver’s license since 1992, had personal experience driving a truck with a collision mitigation system, and when he was purchasing the ten trucks for Indian Creek, he balanced the perceived drawbacks, including driver overreliance and his concern that drivers would be less attentive, with the benefits. Ultimately, he decided not to equip the Freightliners he purchased with a collision system.

In 2017, an Indian Creek driver was operating one of the Freightliner trucks the manager had purchased in 2014. The driver failed to adequately adjust to the speed of the cars that were slowing down on an expressway, and collided with three vehicles, killing all five occupants in the vehicles. The driver pleaded nolo contendere to five counts of vehicular homicide and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The estates of the occupants who were killed in the accident brought suit against Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (Daimler Trucks), the manufacturer of the Freightliner truck, alleging that the truck was defectively designed because of the absence of the collision mitigation system and that Daimler Trucks failed to adequately warn of the dangers associated with failing to have a collision mitigation system installed. Daimler Trucks moved for summary judgment.

Preemption. Daimler Trucks argued that the claims were preempted because the Infrastructure Act of 2021 directed NHTSA to prescribe a standard requiring certain commercial vehicles to be equipped with automatic braking systems. In 2018 and 2021, NHTSA made public statements about the shortcomings of previous automatic emergency braking systems. Daimler Trucks argued that because of the statements by NHTSA, the product liability claims were impliedly preempted. The court rejected the defendant’s theory of preemption, finding that in the absence of a promulgating safety regulation, NHTSA has not conveyed an authoritative statement of a federal policy against front collision warning systems or automatic emergency braking systems from which the court could infer preemption. The court noted that the decision not to regulate front collision warning systems or automatic emergency braking systems seemed to stem from the need for continued research and did not convey the authoritative message that those systems should not be regulated. Therefore, the court ruled that the claims were not preempted by federal law.

Failure to warn. The estates argued that Daimler Trucks failed to adequately warn Indian Creek of the risks associated with failing to have the front collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems installed. However, the purchasing manager at Indian Creek was familiar with the available safety measures but chose not to purchase them after he weighed the dangers associated with the systems, such as inattentive driving and overreliance. The court found that because the purchasing manager was familiar with both systems, he did not need to be warned of the dangers of failing to add those options. Because there was no duty to warn of dangers that were actually known to the user of the product, the court held that Daimler Trucks was entitled to summary judgment on the failure to warn claim.

Design defect. The estates also alleged that the design of the 2014 Freightliner was defective because it did not include front collision warning and automatic emergency braking systems as standard equipment. The truck in question had fully functioning air brakes, the court noted. Under the consumer expectation test, a heavy truck with an air brake system is no more dangerous than an ordinary consumer in 2014 would consider it to be. Thus, the absence of a collision warning system and automatic braking system did not render the Freightliner unreasonably dangerous or defective. The truck manuals clearly stated that the systems were aids, not substitutes, for safe driving. The court noted that it was not enough for the estates to prove that a different design would have mitigated their injuries. The estates did not allege that the absence of the safety systems caused the Freightliner to be incapable of being operated by an attentive driver or keep the truck from being operated at a safe distance from other vehicles. Thus, the court granted summary judgment to Daimler Trucks on the design defect claim.

The case is No. 19-cv-2377-JAR.

Attorneys: Daniel Adam Kopp (Rouse Frets White Goss Gentile Rhodes, PC) for Damian Butler, Alexander P. Cohen, Gerald Y. Cohen and William E. Cohen. Michael J. Kleffner (Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP) for Daimler Trucks North America LLC.

Companies: Daimler Trucks North America LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions PreemptionNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews MotorVehiclesNews KansasNews