466 P.3d 866
Ariz. Ct. App.2020Background
- In 2014 a Jeep Grand Cherokee rear-ended Melissa Varela’s car at high speed; Varela was injured and her 4-year-old daughter was killed. The Jeep did not have automatic emergency braking (AEB).
- Chrysler offered AEB as standard on top trims of the 2014 Grand Cherokee, optional on some mid-level trims, and unavailable on the lowest trim; the driver who hit Varela had not purchased the AEB option.
- Varela sued for negligence and defective design, alleging Chrysler should have made its NCAP‑approved AEB a standard feature (i.e., not “optioned safety”).
- The superior court dismissed her claims on implied obstacle preemption grounds after NHTSA decided in 2017 not to promulgate a formal AEB regulation.
- On appeal the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal (holding the NHTSA decision did not impliedly preempt Varela’s claims), affirmed the protective order precluding a deposition of Chrysler’s chief technical compliance officer, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NHTSA's 2017 decision not to mandate AEB impliedly preempts Varela's state-law tort claims | Varela: Chrysler negligently/defectively designed the Jeep by offering AEB only as an option and should be liable under state law | Chrysler: NHTSA’s decision preserved manufacturer choice; permitting tort claims would conflict with federal objectives and be impliedly preempted (relying on Dashi/Geier) | The court held no implied obstacle preemption; reversed dismissal. NHTSA’s refusal to regulate (given NCAP endorsements and industry voluntary commitments) did not show intent to preempt state tort claims. |
| Whether the court erred in granting Chrysler a protective order to preclude deposition of the chief technical compliance officer | Varela: needed Chernoby’s testimony about corporate rollout/strategy and a press-release quote | Chrysler: Chernoby lacked unique, relevant knowledge; company already produced Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses and other employees | Affirmed protective order; court did not abuse discretion but required Chrysler to produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness on corporate AEB strategy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (agency decision that deliberately preserved manufacturer choice can impliedly preempt state tort claims)
- Williamson v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011) (agency cost‑effectiveness judgments do not automatically preempt state common‑law claims)
- Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51 (2002) (an agency’s decision not to regulate does not, without more, impliedly preempt state tort claims)
- Dashi v. Nissan North America, Inc., 247 Ariz. 56 (App. 2019) (state appellate decision addressing AEB/preemption issues relied on by Chrysler)
- Conklin v. Medtronic, Inc., 245 Ariz. 501 (2018) (standard: appellate review of preemption issues is de novo)