S-5336-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Sponsored by Deb Fischer (R-NE)
What it does
This bill would amend federal transportation law so that compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) shields manufacturers from common-law lawsuits alleging they should have built or equipped a vehicle to a higher safety level than the federal standard required. It changes the current law's wording from stating that compliance "does not exempt" a manufacturer from liability to stating compliance "shall exempt" a manufacturer from liability for failing to exceed the applicable standard.
Who benefits
Motor vehicle manufacturers and their insurers, who would gain protection from a category of lawsuits and reduced litigation costs; parts suppliers who face similar liability exposure; NHTSA, whose safety standards would become the effective ceiling and floor for manufacturer liability rather than a floor that plaintiffs could argue should have been exceeded.
Who is hurt
Consumers and accident victims who could no longer sue for injuries caused by vehicle design defects on the theory that a manufacturer should have exceeded minimum federal standards; personal injury attorneys who bring such claims; state courts and state tort law systems, whose common-law remedies would be preempted in this area; families of crash victims in cases where federal standards lag behind feasible or industry-recognized safer designs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that inconsistent jury verdicts across 50 states create unpredictable liability that raises vehicle costs and undermines the uniform national safety standards Congress asked NHTSA to develop through a rigorous rulemaking process. They contend manufacturers should not face liability for failing to exceed standards that federal experts already determined were appropriate, and that uniformity reduces compliance costs that are ultimately passed on to consumers as higher vehicle prices.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that federal minimum safety standards often lag behind available technology and that common-law lawsuits have historically driven manufacturers to adopt safety improvements—such as airbags and stronger roofs—faster than regulators could mandate them. They contend this bill would immunize manufacturers even when a jury finds a vehicle unreasonably dangerous, cutting off compensation for injured consumers whose harm resulted from a manufacturer's choice not to exceed a decades-old or slow-moving regulatory floor.
Constitutional context
This bill raises a Supremacy Clause and express preemption question: Congress may use its Commerce Clause authority to preempt state common-law tort remedies, but courts have historically wrestled with the scope of preemption under the existing statute, as in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. (2000), which found some state tort claims preempted and others not, depending on whether they conflicted with a specific federal standard.
Checks and balances
Congress would expand federal preemptive authority over state tort law at the expense of state courts and state legislatures, with federal courts retaining the power to interpret the scope of the new exemption in individual cases.
Historical precedent
Congress and the courts have long grappled with preemption of state tort suits under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, most notably in Geier v. American Honda Motor Co. (2000), where the Supreme Court found certain state airbag-related tort claims preempted by federal standards.