433 F.Supp.3d 1216
D. Kan.2020Background
- July 11, 2017 multi-vehicle crash in Kansas killed five; a 2015 Freightliner (the Subject Freightliner) struck three passenger cars. Plaintiffs allege the truck lacked forward collision warning (FCW) and automatic emergency braking (AEB).
- Plaintiffs (residents of Illinois, Kansas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Indiana) sued DTNA and Daimler AG for negligence and strict products liability based on design and failure-to-equip claims.
- DTNA (Delaware LLC; sole member based in Oregon) manufactured/sold the truck through dealers and is registered to do business in Kansas; the truck’s design/manufacture allegedly occurred outside Kansas.
- DTNA moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6), arguing the court lacks personal jurisdiction (no specific or general jurisdiction), and that the claims are preempted by federal law or barred by separation-of-powers concerns.
- The court denied DTNA’s motion: it found no specific jurisdiction but concluded DTNA consented to general jurisdiction by registering to do business in Kansas; it also rejected DTNA’s implied obstacle preemption and separation-of-powers arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific personal jurisdiction | DTNA purposefully availed itself of Kansas via stream-of-commerce (sales, dealers, services) and the crash/injuries occurred in Kansas | DTNA’s design, manufacture, and sale occurred outside Kansas; plaintiffs’ injuries do not arise out of DTNA’s Kansas contacts | No specific jurisdiction: plaintiffs failed to show the requisite nexus between DTNA’s forum contacts and the suit-related conduct |
| General personal jurisdiction (at‑home / consent) | DTNA’s continuous business in Kansas (dealers, contracts, services) and registration to do business subjects it to general jurisdiction | DTNA not "at home" in Kansas; registration cannot constitutionally produce general jurisdiction after Daimler AG | Court rejects "at home" theory but finds consent-based general jurisdiction: DTNA’s Kansas registration constitutes express consent under Kansas law and comports with due process |
| Federal preemption (implied obstacle) | State common-law tort claims are not preempted because NHTSA has not issued a rule forbidding or authoritatively disfavoring FCW/AEB; agency silence alone is not preemptive | NHTSA’s research, rulemaking process and choice not to mandate FCW/AEB reflect a federal regulatory objective; allowing tort claims would frustrate that objective | Preemption rejected: NHTSA’s pending rulemaking and prior inaction do not convey an authoritative federal policy that would create obstacle preemption (Sprietsma controlling) |
| Separation of powers | Plaintiffs’ jury verdict would improperly second-guess agency and legislative authority over vehicle safety | Allowing common-law claims to proceed would interfere with agency rulemaking and policy choices | Rejected: no authority supports barring tort suits where agency has not adopted binding rules; Safety Act preserves state common-law liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (general-jurisdiction standard; corporate "at home" test)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (specific-jurisdiction requires defendant’s forum-related contacts, not plaintiff’s)
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (specific-jurisdiction requires affiliation between forum and underlying controversy)
- J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (limits on asserting jurisdiction based on product distribution)
- Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 ("effects" test for intentional torts and purposeful direction)
- Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (agency inaction does not automatically preempt state tort claims)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (preemption where federal regulation deliberately allowed safety choice)
- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., 562 U.S. 323 (preemption depends on whether federal objective was significant)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts and due process test)
- Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Inc., 514 F.3d 1063 (Tenth Circuit on nexus/contacts analysis)