505 P.3d 244
Ariz.2022Background
- 2015 collision: a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee (Limited trim) without forward collision warning plus (FCW+/AEB) struck Melissa Varela’s stopped car, killing her child; Varela sued Chrysler for negligence, defective design/warning, and wrongful death, alleging AEB would have prevented or reduced the crash.
- FCA (Chrysler) moved to dismiss, arguing state tort claims are preempted under implied obstacle preemption by federal objectives reflected in NHTSA guidance, the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP), and NHTSA’s 2017 denial of a petition to mandate AEB.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the court of appeals reversed, holding the administrative record did not show an intent to preempt AEB-based tort claims.
- The Arizona Supreme Court accepted review to resolve whether, absent a formal NHTSA regulation, the Agency had conveyed an authoritative federal policy preempting state tort claims that would effectively require AEB installation.
- The Court examined NCAP, multiple DOT/NHTSA guidance documents (2016–2020), the 2017 petition denial, and subsequent 2020 proposed rulemaking notices, and concluded the administrative record did not establish a federal policy that actually conflicts with Varela’s claims.
- Holding: implied obstacle preemption does not apply here; Varela’s claims are not preempted. The Court affirmed the court of appeals, reversed the trial court, overruled Dashi v. Nissan, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether implied obstacle preemption bars state tort claims that would effectively require AEB installation | Varela: NHTSA guidance and NCAP encourage AEB and acknowledge state tort/ liability roles; NHTSA has not conveyed an authoritative preemptive policy | Chrysler: NHTSA guidance, NCAP, and the 2017 denial show a federal policy favoring voluntary adoption and manufacturer choice, so state tort suits imposing AEB would frustrate federal objectives | Court: No implied obstacle preemption. The record does not show an authoritative federal policy precluding state tort regulation or liability; claims may proceed |
| Which precedents govern analysis (Geier / Dashi v. Sprietsma & Williamson) | Varela: Geier is inapplicable absent a promulgated federal regulation; Sprietsma and Williamson better fit the facts | Chrysler: Geier (and Dashi applying Geier) supports preemption where agency action preserved manufacturer choice | Court: Geier’s framework doesn't control without a specific regulation and agency contemporaneous explanation; Sprietsma and Williamson guide here. The Court overruled Dashi |
Key Cases Cited
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (applied implied obstacle preemption where a promulgated safety standard and contemporaneous agency explanation preserved manufacturer choice)
- Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002) (an agency’s deliberate decision not to regulate, explained as a data- and feasibility-based judgment, did not convey an authoritative federal policy barring state tort suits)
- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011) (an agency’s allowance of design options based on cost-effectiveness does not by itself preempt state tort claims)
- Dashi v. Nissan North America, Inc., 247 Ariz. 56 (App. 2019) (court of appeals held AEB-related tort claims preempted; Arizona Supreme Court overruled this decision)
- Conklin v. Medtronic, Inc., 245 Ariz. 501 (2018) (Arizona standard that defendant bears burden to prove preemption)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (explains obstacle preemption: state law that stands as an obstacle to federal objectives is preempted)