Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment 20th Edition by David Twomey,Marianne Jennings

Exercise 5

Alexis Geier was injured in an accident while driving a 1987 Honda Accord that did not have passive safety restraints. When her Honda Accord was manufactured, the U.S. Department of Transportation required passive safety restraints on some, but not all, vehicles. Geier and her parents filed suit against Honda for its negligence in not equipping the Honda Accord with a driver's side airbag. Geier alleged that because Honda knew of the safety standard but did not voluntarily comply with it (it was not required to do so under the federal regulations), it was negligent under state negligence standards for liability and should be held liable. The district court granted Honda summary judgment based on Honda's argument that safety requirements for cars were set exclusively by the federal government. The court of appeals affirmed, and Geier appealed. What would be the effect of a decision that requires a car company to comply with state by- state standards of negligence? Would a state court finding of negligence be a constitutional exercise of state power? Should the U.S. Supreme Court affirm or reverse the summary judgment for Honda? [ Geier v American Honda Motor Co., 529 US 1913]