MINTON, EXR., APPELLANT, v. HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC. ET AL., APPELLEES.
Nos. 96-2006 and 96-2025
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted June 10, 1997—Decided October 15, 1997
80 Ohio St.3d 62 | 1997-Ohio-356
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County, No. 14949.
A state tort claim based upon a manufacturer‘s failure to equip its automobiles with air bags is not expressly or impliedly preempted by former
{¶ 1} On March 14, 1991, Jeffery L. Minton was driving his 1990 Honda Accord on Hardin Road in Washington Township, Miami County, Ohio. A vehicle traveling in the opposite direction crossed the center of the road and collided virtually head-on with Minton‘s automobile. Although Minton was wearing both an automatic shoulder belt and a manual seat belt at the time of the accident, he sustained fatal head injuries.
{¶ 2} On February 11, 1993, appellant, Mary Ann Minton, as executor1 of the estate of Jeffery Minton, filed a survivorship cause of action on behalf of the estate of Jeffery and a wrongful death cause of action on behalf of (1) herself as surviving spouse, (2) Travis Minton, the eleven-year-old son of Jeffery and Mary Ann, (3) the parents of Jeffery, and (4) the other next of kin of Jeffery. The cause of action sounded in products liability and was filed against appellees Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc. and others (collectively referred to as “Honda“). In the complaint, appellant alleged, inter alia, that the 1990 Accord driven by Jeffery and manufactured by Honda was defectively designed. Appellant‘s complaint was based in part on the fact that the driver‘s-side restraint system failed to properly protect Jeffery during the accident.
{¶ 3} Prior to trial, Honda filed a motion in limine. Honda sought to preclude evidence by appellant that the 1990 Accord did not contain an air bag. In the motion, Honda asserted, among other things, that any claim pertaining to the absence of an air bag was preempted by federal law.
{¶ 4} The trial court granted Honda‘s motion in limine. At trial, appellant attempted to demonstrate that the shoulder belt restraint system in the 1990 Accord was defectively designed. Appellant was allowed to introduce evidence of the belt geometry in a 1987 Honda Civic. However, appellant was not allowed to introduce evidence of subsequent changes made by Honda to its Accords and incorporated in 1992 models. According to appellant, 1992 Accords were safer in front-end collisions because the shoulder belt mechanisms in 1992 models had been changed and because 1992 Accords contained air bags.
{¶ 5} During trial, the following colloquy occurred between the attorneys for the parties and the trial court with respect to Honda‘s motion in limine and the evidence proffered by appellant:
“MR. SHEA [counsel for appellant]: As Your Honor remembers, we have a proffer. There was a motion in limine filed with the Court prior to trial concerning several subjects, one of which was the subject of air bags. The Plaintiff, in its brief to the Court, outlined the law. At this time, we just want to make our proffer of evidence. The Plaintiff has requested that the testimony be allowed, not only because preemption to the air bag as a defect, there are states and there is current law that says there‘s not preemption, but also for other purposes. The fact that it is an alternative design is not preemptive. Under the risk benefit, alternative designs are permitted, and the fact that the alternative design is one of those which should be considered by the Court, we believe that our exhibits should have been admitted.
“Additionally, the fact of remedial repair, and this does not only go to the air bags, it goes to the location of the B pillar belt geometry which are shown in Plaintiff‘s exhibits that have been excluded, that the Defendant, in 1992, and in subsequent years, located the belt geometry point in the proper location, or at least in a much preferred location than it was in the 1990 Honda vehicle which was the identical platform of the 1992.
“The Plaintiff requested that it be permitted to show simply that location, even if the air bag information were removed because of other concerns that the Court had, which we were willing to do.
“The same is true of the exhibits which deal with brochures depicting the B pillar placement point, as well as the air bag system, were relevant under the claims of the parties.
“Finally, the B pillar placement point as remedy of a defect, we believe that the evidence should have been allowed to show that Honda cured the bad, the poor placement of the B pillar placement for the belt geometry, and that the exhibits go to that point as well to show evidence of cure for the B pillar placement.
“* * *
“MR. BODE [counsel for Honda]: Your Honor, we would stand on the position we took in our initial brief in the motion in limine that the issue of an air bag is preempted by Federal law, and that any attempt to compare the 1990 Honda Accord with a vehicle that is equipped with, as part of its occupant restraint system, an air bag is preempted and a comparison that is not allowed by the law.
“* * *
“THE COURT: Very well. The Court has noted both the memoranda submitted by Counsel and does not alter its position from its previously announced position that the exhibits and the subject matter described will not be included. The exhibits, as listed by Counsel for Plaintiff, shall be contained as part of the proffer.”
{¶ 6} The jury returned a verdict in favor of Honda. Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeals for Montgomery County. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.
{¶ 7} The court noted initially that the change in design of the shoulder belt restraint system in 1992 Accords was a subsequent remedial measure taken by Honda. In this regard, the court, citing McFarland v. Bruno Mach. Corp. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 305, 626 N.E.2d 659, agreed with appellant that “evidence of subsequent remedial measures is admissible to prove design defects in strict liability cases.” Nevertheless, the court concluded that the trial court properly excluded any evidence of the occupant restraint system in 1992 Accords. Specifically, the court held:
“[We] agree with Honda that the evidence is inadmissible in this instance because of the nature of the restraint systems in issue. Honda utilized an automatic seatbelt as its passive restraint system in the 1990 Accord. However, in the 1992 Accord, Honda used an airbag as its passive restraint system. Therefore, pursuant to the relevant federal legislation, Honda was allowed to change the 1992 shoulder belt restrain[t] to a manual, rather than a passive, restraint system. In other words, the later model year included a shoulder belt restraint system that the driver had to pull down and fasten, while the 1990 Accord featured a shoulder belt restraint system that automatically engaged when the door was closed. Thus, the shoulder belt systems (manual versus passive) of the two model years are not truly comparable.
“At trial, Minton offered to redact the photographs [showing the belt design change] to exclude any reference to the airbag system in the 1992 Honda. In our opinion, however, the difference in the two systems would necessarily precipitate the introduction of evidence regarding the change from a passive shoulder belt to a manually operated shoulder belt, and thus would require the introduction of evidence regarding the reason for the design change (i.e., the conversion to airbag technology * * *). Since we have concluded later in this opinion that the failure to install airbags is an issue preempted by federal law, we find that evidence of the subsequent remedial change in the shoulder belt restraint system is inadmissible because it would inevitably lead to the jury‘s becoming aware of the fact that Honda switched to an airbag passive restraint system, thereby injecting an issue—the failure to have used the airbag system in the 1990 model Accord—that was preempted by federal law.”
{¶ 8} The court of appeals ultimately concluded that appellant‘s design defect claim based on the failure to install a driver‘s-side air bag was not expressly preempted by former
Shea & Associates, Joseph W. Shea III, Shirley A. Coffey and Andrea T. Rosenthal, for appellant.
Reminger & Reminger Co., L.P.A., and Hugh J. Bode; and Eric A. Portuguese, for appellees.
Nurenberg, Plevin, Heller & McCarthy Co., L.P.A., Marshall I. Nurenberg, Richard C. Alkire and Kathleen J. St. John, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.
The Landskroner Law Firm, Ltd., Jack Landskroner, Lawrence Landskroner and Arthur Bryant, urging reversal for amici curiae, Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, Public Citizen, Center for Auto Safety, and Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.
Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott, Robert W. Kerpsack and Dale K. Perdue; Coben & Associates and Larry E. Coben, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Raymond Richard Nelson.
Thompson, Hine & Flory, Elizabeth B. Wright and James W. Wiggin III, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ford Motor Company.
Mayer, Brown & Platt, Kenneth S. Geller, Erika Z. Jones, John J. Sullivan and Lily Fu Swenson, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.
DOUGLAS, J.
{¶ 9} The central question presented for our consideration is whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, former
I
{¶ 10} Based on the belief that “the soaring rate of death and debilitation on the Nation‘s highways is not inexorable,” S.Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News 2709, Congress, in 1966, enacted the Safety Act “to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from traffic accidents.” Former
{¶ 11} In accordance with the Safety Act,
{¶ 12} The Safety Act includes two sections that are particularly relevant to our determination of whether the court of appeals erred in determining that appellant was properly precluded from presenting evidence of the subsequent measures taken by Honda with respect to its Accords. The Act contains a preemption clause, which provided:
“Whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard established under this title is in effect, no State or political subdivision of a State shall have any authority either to establish, or to continue in effect, with respect to any motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment any safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of such vehicle or item of equipment which is not identical to the Federal standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed as preventing any State from enforcing any safety standard which is identical to a Federal safety standard. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the Federal Government or the government of any State or political subdivision thereof from establishing a safety requirement applicable to motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment procured for its own use if such requirement imposes a higher standard of performance than that required to comply with the otherwise applicable Federal standard.” (Emphasis added.) Former
Section 1392(d), Title 15, U.S.Code (now found, substantively unchanged, atSection 30103[b][1], Title 49, U.S.Code ).
{¶ 13} As a specific exception to the preemption clause, the Safety Act also contains a savings clause. The savings clause stated that “[c]ompliance with any Federal motor vehicle safety standard issued under this subchapter does not exempt any person from any liability under common law.” (Emphasis added.) Former
{¶ 14} In the case at bar, the court of appeals determined that appellant was precluded under the Safety Act from presenting evidence of design changes made to the Accords. Thus, we must determine what effect both the preemption clause and the savings clause have on appellant‘s claim and, particularly, whether appellant should have been allowed to introduce evidence that the 1990 Accord did not have an air bag, that the belt geometry was changed in 1992 Accords, and that 1992 models contained air bags.
II
{¶ 15} The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides that “the Laws of the United States * * * shall be the supreme Law of the Land; * * * any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
“First, Congress can define explicitly the extent to which its enactments pre-empt state law. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 95-98 [103 S.Ct. 2890, 2898-2900, 77 L.Ed.2d 490, 500-502] (1983). Pre-emption fundamentally is a question of congressional intent, see Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co., 485 U.S. 293, 299 [108 S.Ct. 1145, 1150, 99 L.Ed.2d 316, 325] (1988), and when Congress has made its intent known through explicit statutory language, the courts’ task is an easy one.
“Second, in the absence of explicit statutory language, state law is pre-empted where it regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended the Federal Government to occupy exclusively. Such an intent may be inferred from a ‘scheme of federal regulation * * * so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it,’ or where an Act of Congress ‘touch[es] a field in which the federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.’ Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 [67 S.Ct. 1146, 1152, 91 L.Ed. 1447, 1459] (1947). Although this Court has not hesitated to draw an inference of field pre-emption where it is supported by the federal statutory and regulatory schemes, it has emphasized: ‘Where * * * the field which Congress is said to have pre-empted’ includes areas that have ‘been traditionally occupied by the States,’ congressional intent to supersede state laws must be ‘“clear and manifest.“’ Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 [97 S.Ct. 1305, 1309, 51 L.Ed.2d 604, 614] (1977), quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S., at 230 [67 S.Ct. at 1152, 91 L.Ed. at 1459].
“Finally, state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Thus, the Court has found pre-emption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, see, e.g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142-143 [83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217-1218, 10 L.Ed.2d 248, 257] (1963), or where state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 [61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581, 587] (1941). See also Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 747 [101 S.Ct. 2114, 2129, 68 L.Ed.2d 576, 596] (1981).”
{¶ 16} More concisely, federal preemption of state law can occur in essentially three instances: (1) where Congress expressly preempts state law (express preemption); (2) where Congress has occupied the entire field (field preemption); or (3) where there is an actual conflict between federal and state law (conflict preemption). Field and conflict preemption are both forms of implied preemption. See Gade v. Natl. Solid Wastes Mgt. Assn. (1992), 505 U.S. 88, 98, 112 S.Ct. 2374, 2383, 120 L.Ed.2d 73, 90.
{¶ 17} The critical question in any preemption analysis is whether Congress intended state law to be superseded by federal law. In re Miamisburg, 68 Ohio St.3d at 260, 626 N.E.2d at 89, citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992), 505 U.S. 504, 516, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 2617, 120 L.Ed.2d 407, 422. However, in considering issues arising under the Supremacy Clause, courts must start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the states are not to be superseded by federal law unless that is the clear and manifest purpose of Congress. Id. at 516, 112 S.Ct. at 2617, 120 L.Ed.2d at 422, citing Rice, 331 U.S. at 230, 67 S.Ct. at 1152, 91 L.Ed. at 1459. See, also, California Fed. S. & L. Assn. v. Guerra (1987), 479 U.S. 272, 280-281, 107 S.Ct. 683, 689, 93 L.Ed.2d 613, 623; CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood (1993), 507 U.S. 658, 663-664, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 1737, 123 L.Ed.2d 387, 396 (“In the interest of avoiding unintended encroachment on the authority of the States, however, a court interpreting a federal statute pertaining to a subject traditionally governed by state law will be reluctant to find pre-emption.“); and Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996), 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2250, 135 L.Ed.2d 700, 715 (“[B]ecause the States are independent sovereigns in our federal system, we have long presumed that Congress does not cavalierly pre-empt state-law causes of action.“). To that end, “[t]he applicable preemption provision must be read narrowly ‘in light of the presumption against pre-emption of state police power regulations.‘” In re Miamisburg, 68 Ohio St.3d at 264, 626 N.E.2d at 92, citing Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 518, 112 S.Ct. at 2618, 120 L.Ed.2d at 424.
A
{¶ 18} The court of appeals held, and we agree, that the Safety Act did not expressly preempt appellant‘s products liability claim based upon Honda‘s failure to install air bags in its 1990 Accords. The conclusion reached by the court of appeals is in accord with the vast majority of federal circuit courts that have considered a similar claim. See Wood v. Gen. Motors Corp. (C.A.1, 1988), 865 F.2d 395, 402; Kitts v. Gen. Motors Corp. (C.A.10, 1989), 875 F.2d 787; Taylor v. Gen. Motors Corp. (C.A.11, 1989), 875 F.2d 816, 825; and Pokorny v. Ford Motor Co. (C.A.3, 1990), 902 F.2d 1116, 1121. But, cf., Harris v. Ford Motor Co. (C.A.9, 1997), 110 F.3d 1410, 1415 (concluding that Section 1392[d] expressly preempts state law causes of action for failure to install air bags). Further, various state Supreme Courts have also determined that the Act does not expressly preempt state damage claims based upon a manufacturer‘s failure to install air bags. See, e.g., Tebbetts v. Ford Motor Co. (1995), 140 N.H. 203, 665 A.2d 345; Wilson v. Pleasant (Ind.1995), 660 N.E.2d 327; and Munroe v. Galati (Ariz.1997), 938 P.2d 1114.
{¶ 19} In the preemption clause, Congress expressed its intent to preempt all “safety standards” by a “State or political subdivision of a State” that are applicable to the same aspect of performance or item of equipment as the federal standard but “not identical to the Federal standard.” See former
{¶ 20} This court has recognized that, in the appropriate case, state tort claims can be within the preemptive reach of a federal statute. Jenkins, 69 Ohio St.3d at 544, 634 N.E.2d at 1001, citing In re Miamisburg, 68 Ohio St.3d at 262, 626 N.E.2d at 91. See, also, Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 520-523, 112 S.Ct. at 2619-2621, 120 L.Ed.2d at 425-427 (holding that the phrase “requirement[s] or prohibition[s] * * * imposed under State law” in
{¶ 21} Notably, former
{¶ 22} Thus, we find that the absence of any explicit reference to state tort damage actions in the Safety Act‘s preemption clause leads to a finding that appellant‘s claim is not expressly preempted under the Act.7 We agree with one commentator who has concluded that “[t]here is no indication that Congress considered a common law damages action to fall within the meaning of the term ‘safety standard’ as used in the Safety Act‘s preemption provision. On its face, the preemption provision by its own terms merely appears to preclude state legislatures and other state rule-making bodies from mandating vehicle equipment or performance standards not identical to promulgated federal safety standards.
{¶ 23} “Beyond the precise words of the preemption provision, this reading is appropriate for several other reasons. First, as dictated by Cipollone, one must construe express preemption provisions in light of the presumption against the preemption of state police power. This presumption reinforces the necessity of a narrow reading of §1392(d). Second, the preemption provision allows States and their political subdivisions to establish identical safety standards, and even higher standards when acquiring vehicles for their own use. Third, there is no general, inherent conflict between federal preemption of state mandated vehicle safety standards and the continued vitality of state common law damages actions. All of these considerations indicate that §1392(d) is best read as having superseded only positive enactments by state legislatures or administrative agencies that mandate particular safety standards with respect to vehicle performance.” (Footnotes omitted.) Chadwell, supra, 46 Baylor L.Rev. at 176-177.
{¶ 24} Accordingly, permitting a state tort law cause of action does not, in and of itself, constitute the setting of a “standard” as contemplated in the Safety Act. Allowing a state cause of action does not set a standard requiring that Honda must include air bags in every vehicle it manufactures and sells.
{¶ 25} Moreover, even if we were to assume that the preemptive language of former
{¶ 26} Congress unambiguously expressed its intent in the savings clause not to exempt any person from “any liability under common law.” (Emphasis added.) Former
{¶ 27} Specifically, the Senate Report states that the “[f]ederal minimum safety standards need not be interpreted as restricting State common law standards of care. Compliance with such standards would thus not necessarily shield any person from product liability at common law.” S.Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News 2709, 2720. The House Committee Report also provides that Congress “intended, and this subsection specifically establishes, that compliance with safety standards is not to be a defense or otherwise to affect the rights of parties under common law particularly those relating to warranty, contract, and tort liability.” (Emphasis added.) H.R.Rep. 1776, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 24 (1966). Remarks by members of Congress also support the view that, notwithstanding the preemption clause, the savings clause was intended to preserve all state tort damage actions. See, e.g., 112 Cong.Rec. 20599 (1966) (remark by Senator Magnuson that “[t]he Senate conferees accepted the House provision that compliance with Federal standards does not exempt any person from common law liability. This provision makes explicit, in the bill, a principle developed in the Senate report. This provision does not prevent any person from introducing in a lawsuit evidence of compliance or noncompliance with Federal standards. No court rules of evidence are intended to be altered by this provision.“). Indeed, nowhere in the Safety Act‘s history have we uncovered even the slightest hint that the preemption clause was intended to foreclose any state common-law duties enforced by damage actions.
{¶ 28} Accordingly, we conclude that the Safety Act should not be construed as manifesting an intent by Congress to preempt appellant‘s air bag claim. Therefore, we hold that appellant‘s claim is not expressly preempted by the Act.
B
{¶ 29} Having concluded that the language of the Safety Act does not expressly preempt appellant‘s claim, we turn next to the issue of implied preemption. Honda argues that even if the preemption clause in the Act does not expressly extinguish appellant‘s claim, it impliedly does so. In support of its position, Honda cites numerous courts that have concluded that the Safety Act impliedly preempts claims like the one asserted by appellant. See, e.g., Wood, 865 F.2d 395, and Pokorny, 902 F.2d 1116. We acknowledge that the clear weight of authority, at least before the court‘s decision in Cipollone and its progeny, supports Honda‘s position on this matter. See Wilson, 660 N.E.2d at 330.
{¶ 30} Appellant, on the other hand, urges that it is not necessary for us to consider whether Congressional intent to preempt a “no air bag” claim may be inferred under the principles of implied preemption. Appellant suggests that, in light of the court‘s findings in Cipollone, an implied preemption analysis is not required in this case.
{¶ 31} Cipollone involved state-law claims made by and on behalf of smoker and lung cancer victim Rose Cipollone against various cigarette manufacturers. As one of their defenses, the manufacturers in Cipollone asserted that the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertisement Act, enacted in 1965, and its successor, the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969,
“When Congress has considered the issue of pre-emption and has included in the enacted legislation a provision explicitly addressing that issue, and when that provision provides a ‘reliable indicium of congressional intent with respect to state authority,’ Malone v. White Motor Corp. [1978], 435 U.S. [497], 505 [98 S.Ct. 1185, 1190, 55 L.Ed.2d 443, 451], ‘there is no need to infer congressional intent to pre-empt state laws from the substantive provisions’ of the legislation. California Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 282 [107 S.Ct. 683, 690, 93 L.Ed.2d 613, 624] (1987) (opinion of Marshall, J.). Such reasoning is a variant of the familiar principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius: Congress’ enactment of a provision defining the pre-emptive reach of a statute implies that matters beyond that reach are not pre-empted. In this case, the other provisions of the 1965 and 1969 Acts offer no cause to look beyond § 5 of each Act. Therefore, we need only identify the domain expressly pre-empted by each of those sections. As the 1965 and 1969 provisions differ substantially, we consider each in turn.” Cipollone, 505 U.S. at 517, 112 S.Ct. at 2618, 120 L.Ed.2d at 423.
{¶ 32} Relying on Cipollone, we have concluded that if the federal legislation at issue contains an express preemption clause, there is no need to look beyond the text of that clause to determine the preemptive intent of Congress. See, e.g., In re Miamisburg, 68 Ohio St.3d at 260, 626 N.E.2d at 90. See, also, Jenkins, 69 Ohio St.3d at 545, 634 N.E.2d at 1001 (“If a federal statute contains an express preemption clause, matters beyond the reach of the express clause are not preempted. * * * Since the
{¶ 33} However, following Cipollone, and subsequent to our decisions in In re Miamisburg and its progeny, the United States Supreme Court decided Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick (1995), 514 U.S. 280, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 131 L.Ed.2d 385. In Myrick, the Supreme Court noted that an explicit statement limiting Congress‘s preemptive intent does not always obviate the need to consider the implied preemption. Specifically, the majority in Myrick concluded that:
“The fact that an express definition of the pre-emptive reach of a statute ‘implies‘—i.e., supports a reasonable inference—that Congress did not intend to pre-empt other matters does not mean that the express clause entirely forecloses any possibility of implied pre-emption. Indeed, just two paragraphs after the quoted passage in Cipollone, we engaged in a conflict pre-emption analysis of the
Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, 79 Stat. 282, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1331 et seq. , and found ‘no general, inherent conflict between federal pre-emption of state warning requirements and the continued vitality of state common-law damages actions.’ 505 U.S., at 518 [112 S.Ct. at 2618, 120 L.Ed.2d at 424]. Our subsequent decisions have not read Cipollone to obviate the need for analysis of an individual statute‘s pre-emptive effects. See, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 673 [113 S.Ct. 1732, 1742, 123 L.Ed.2d 387, 402], n. 12 (1993). (‘We reject petitioner‘s claim of implied “conflict” pre-emption * * * on the basis of the preceding analysis‘). At best, Cipollone supports an inference that an express pre-emption clause forecloses implied pre-emption; it does not establish a rule.” Myrick, 514 U.S. at 288-289, 115 S.Ct. at 1488, 131 L.Ed.2d at 393.
{¶ 34} Notably, Myrick did not overrule Cipollone. Rather, it is apparent that Myrick sought merely to disapprove of decisions interpreting Cipollone to mean that implied preemption can never exist when Congress has included an express preemption clause in the legislation in question. Wilson, 660 N.E.2d at 334.
{¶ 35} Thus, given the fact that Myrick did not overrule Cipollone, and applying the principles set forth in Cipollone, we agree with appellant that an implied preemption analysis is not required in this case. See Wilson, 660 N.E.2d at 334; Tebbetts, 140 N.H. at 207, 665 A.2d at 348; Munroe, 938 P.2d at 1117; and Nelson v. Ford Motor Co. (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 158, 162, 670 N.E.2d 307, 310 (“The express preemption clause, when read together with the savings clause, provides a ‘reliable indicium of congressional intent’ to preserve common-law
{¶ 36} As we noted earlier, implied preemption includes both “field” and “conflict” preemption. Therefore, we begin our analysis of implied preemption with “field” preemption.
1
{¶ 37} The area of implied field preemption requires little discussion in light of the fact that Honda has conceded that the Safety Act does not occupy the field exclusively with respect to appellant‘s claim. Honda has accepted the fact that “[t]he Safety Act also contains a general savings clause, which makes clear that Congress did not intend to occupy the entire field of automotive safety.” We agree with Honda in this regard. Additionally, we would also point out that the
{¶ 38} Furthermore, it is also apparent that standard 208 does not create a “scheme of federal regulation [that] is sufficiently comprehensive to make reasonable the inference that Congress ‘left no room’ for” appellant‘s claim. Guerra, 479 U.S. at 281, 107 S.Ct. at 689, 93 L.Ed.2d at 623. The phrase “motor vehicle safety standards,” as set forth in former
2
{¶ 39} We now move to “conflict” preemption. Honda urges that appellant‘s claim is impliedly preempted by federal law because appellant‘s claim actually conflicts with the federal scheme. Implied conflict preemption can occur in essentially two instances: (1) where it is impossible to comply with both state and federal requirements; or (2) where state law obstructs Congressional objectives. Myrick, 514 U.S. at 287, 115 S.Ct. at 1487, 131 L.Ed.2d at 392.
{¶ 40} After extensive analysis and reflection, we believe that many of Honda‘s arguments of implied conflict preemption rest on the same faulty premise as its express-preemption argument, namely, that appellant‘s claim somehow amounts to a state regulatory mechanism. That being the case, it is not “impossible” for Honda to comply with both federal and state law because, as we determined in Part IIA, supra, appellant‘s claim just does not amount to a state performance standard. Honda‘s arguments are not well taken for the additional reason that nothing within the Safety Act or standard 208 prevented Honda from including air
{¶ 41} Specifically, Honda contends, as part of its “conflict preemption” argument, that appellant‘s claim is impliedly preempted by the Safety Act because, if allowed, appellant‘s claim would frustrate Congress‘s goal of ensuring uniformity of automotive safety regulations. See Wood, 865 F.2d at 412 (“Congress decided that once the federal government had promulgated a standard, the states’ usual role in setting safety standards was subordinated in the interest of national uniformity.“); and Harris, 110 F.3d at 1415 (“The text of [Section] 1392[d] and its purpose in the overall structure of the Act—ensuring national uniformity in safety standards—clearly pre-empts common law claims.“).
{¶ 42} We do not agree. Rather, we agree with those courts that have soundly rejected the position that uniformity is an overriding purpose of the Safety Act. See, e.g., Garrett v. Ford Motor Co. (D.Md.1987), 684 F.Supp. 407, 409 (“The expressly declared purpose of the Act was to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents,
{¶ 43} While we are aware that Congress was concerned with providing uniform safety standards while enacting the Safety Act, see S.Rep. No. 1301, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. 12, reprinted in 1966 U.S.Code Cong. & Adm.News 2709, 2720,9 the declared purpose of the Safety Act was “to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries to persons resulting from traffic accidents.” Former
{¶ 44} Honda also contends that appellant‘s claim would “conflict with and undermine” the purposes of the Safety Act and standard 208 because it would remove the flexibility and options authorized by federal law. See Baird v. Gen. Motors Corp. (N.D.Ohio 1986), 654 F.Supp. 28, 32 (“An automobile manufacturer
{¶ 45} Again, we respectfully disagree. Like the uniformity element, assuring flexibility and choice was not the primary purpose of the Safety Act. The focus of the Act is to reduce deaths and injuries from automobile accidents by requiring safer vehicle designs.10 Clearly, imposing liability for failure to install an air bag would not defeat the purpose of reducing deaths and injuries due to front-end crashes. Rather, the effect of liability here would be to compensate a plaintiff for the injuries allegedly caused by a manufacturer‘s choice not to do something which, in fact, was specifically allowed under federal law in the first instance. Moreover, we fail to see how appellant‘s claim could possibly remove the elements of flexibility and choice afforded under standard 208, because appellant‘s claim simply does not force Honda to do anything. Granted, an award of damages subjects a manufacturer to monetary liability, but that liability does not impose a legal obligation on the manufacturer to change its product design. Hernandez-Gomez, 185 Ariz. at 519, 917 P.2d at 248 (“Imposition of tort liability under Plaintiff‘s theory does not interfere with Congress’ chosen method because it does not establish any performance standard. Standard 208 sets out minimum safety standards that are uniformly applicable to all cars manufactured, whereas tort liability operates to encourage behavior but not require it. Manufacturers may
{¶ 46} Accordingly, we find Honda‘s implied-preemption arguments not well taken. Congress did not intend for the Safety Act to occupy the entire field of auto safety. In addition, appellant‘s claim does not prevent compliance with standard 208, nor does it thwart the accomplishment of the full purposes of Congress. Myrick, 514 U.S. at 287, 115 S.Ct. at 1487, 131 L.Ed.2d at 392.
III
{¶ 47} Honda also contends that appellant‘s “no air bag” claim should be barred because during discovery, counsel for appellant stated that he would not raise the issue that the 1990 Accord did not contain an air bag. Apparently, this discussion occurred between the parties’ attorneys during the deposition testimony of one of appellant‘s expert witnesses. Although Honda set forth portions of the deposition in its motion in limine, the deposition itself was apparently never filed with the trial court. Thus, we are unable to verify what actually occurred during the deposition. In any event, we find that appellant did not waive her right to bring this claim. Honda was aware that appellant would attempt to introduce evidence at trial of remedial changes made to Honda‘s 1992 Accords, which included the fact that 1992 models contained air bags. That is precisely why Honda filed its motion in limine. In addition, the trial court granted Honda‘s motion without a reason. Accordingly, from our review of what is now before us, we are compelled to find that Honda‘s argument is not well taken.
{¶ 48} In McFarland v. Bruno Mach. Corp. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 305, 626 N.E.2d 659, we held that “Evid.R. 407, which prohibits the introduction of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to prove negligence or culpable conduct, is not applicable to products liability cases premised upon strict liability in tort.” Id., syllabus. In McFarland, we set forth the pros and cons of allowing post-occurrence modifications by a manufacturer into evidence. In concluding that such evidence
“[W]e are aware of the contention by some that the introduction of evidence of subsequent remedial measures in a strict products liability case could be highly prejudicial to a defendant-manufacturer. While this contention may have some validity, an equally plausible assertion can be made on behalf of an injured plaintiff if such evidence is excluded. Without question, all evidence going to the heart of an issue is, to some extent, ‘prejudicial’ to someone. That is the very essence of ‘evidence’ and our adversary system. Let the jury decide!” Id., 68 Ohio St.3d at 312, 626 N.E.2d at 664.
{¶ 49} In the case at bar, Honda had the option to install air bags in its 1990 Accords but chose not to do so. However, Honda equipped its 1992 Accords with air bags. In addition, Honda changed the location of the shoulder belt attachment system in its 1992 models. Appellant was allowed to show the belt geometry makeup in a 1987 Honda Civic but was not permitted to show the location of the belt mechanism in 1992 Accords. According to appellant, both 1990 and 1992 Accords were the same body type. Hence, the question that remains in our minds is, why did Honda make these changes? Maybe the question answers itself. Clearly, evidence of the alleged remedial changes implemented by Honda directly concerns whether alternative designs were feasible and whether the 1990 Accord was in fact defective. Proof that Honda equipped its 1992 Accords with air bags and that the shoulder belts in 1992 models were positioned differently than 1990 Accords would be probative of the quality of 1990 Accords. The jury was not allowed to view these subsequent changes. “Let the jury decide!” McFarland, 68 Ohio St.3d at 312, 626 N.E.2d at 664.
IV
{¶ 50} In conclusion, we hold that a state tort claim based upon a manufacturer‘s failure to equip its automobiles with air bags is not expressly or
{¶ 51} Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. On remand, the trial court should allow the parties to conduct additional discovery including, but not limited to, the subsequent changes made by Honda to its 1992 Accords.
Judgment reversed
and cause remanded.
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
COOK, J., dissenting.
{¶ 52} Because I believe that state “no air bag” claims grounded in tort are impliedly preempted by the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, former
{¶ 53} The majority bases its decision on the implied preemption issue on three factors: (1) appellant‘s state law cause of action does not amount to a state performance standard; (2) assuming that state law would penalize Honda for its failure to implement an air bag, it would not be “impossible” for Honda to comply with both state and federal law because the federal standard does not prohibit implementation of air bags; and (3) the primary purpose of the Safety Act is to reduce death and injuries resulting from traffic accidents, while national uniformity
{¶ 54} It is important to an express-preemption analysis whether appellant‘s state law cause of action amounts to a state performance standard because, if it does not, express preemption cannot be found. That inquiry, however, has little bearing on the issue of implied preemption. In Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1992), 505 U.S. 504, 112 S.Ct. 2608, 120 L.Ed.2d 407, the court stressed that state “‘regulation can be as effectively exerted through an award of damages as through some form of preventive relief. The obligation to pay compensation can be, indeed is designed to be, a potent method of governing conduct and controlling policy.‘” Id. at 521, 112 S.Ct. at 2620, 120 L.Ed.2d at 426, quoting San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon (1959), 359 U.S. 236, 247, 79 S.Ct. 773, 780, 3 L.Ed.2d 775, 784. Accordingly, even if not the definitional equivalent of a safety standard, state actions at common law may generate tensions with federal safety standards so as to create a conflict, warranting preemption.
{¶ 55} In delimiting the reach of implied preemption, the United States Supreme Court has stated that “state law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Thus, the Court has found pre-emption where it is impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements, * * * or where state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.‘” (Emphasis added.) English v. Gen. Elec. Co. (1990), 496 U.S. 72, 79, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 2275, 110 L.Ed.2d 65, 74, quoting Hines v. Davidowitz (1941), 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581, 587.
{¶ 56} I begin my analysis by noting that the rule set out by the Supreme Court on implied conflict preemption recognizes two disjunctive bases for preemption. The majority rejects preemption on the first basis, impossibility of compliance, determining that, by choosing air bags for all its automobiles, Honda
{¶ 57} The flaw in the majority‘s analysis rejecting the second, alternative basis for preemption is that the majority itself subverts a goal of Congress in passing the Safety Act—uniformity—in favor of what it labels the “overriding” purpose of the Act. Cipollone, however, establishes that a court is to look to the full purposes and objectives of Congress embodied in an act, not only to that purpose or objective that a court deems overriding.11
{¶ 58} In making law, a legislative body necessarily strikes balances in formulating a scheme to accomplish its ultimate goal. Compromises are necessary to reconcile legitimate competing interests and to ensure the act‘s workability. Piecemeal subversion of an act ultimately weakens it. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr (1996), 518 U.S. 470, 485, 116 S.Ct. 2240, 2251, 135 L.Ed.2d 700, 716, the United States Supreme Court recognized that preemption analysis requires courts to look at the structure and purpose of the statute as a whole in determining Congress‘s purpose in enacting legislation. According to the court, that purpose is revealed “not only in the text, but through the reviewing court‘s reasoned understanding of the way in which Congress intended the statute and its surrounding regulatory scheme to affect business, consumers, and the law.” Id.
THE SAVINGS CLAUSE
{¶ 60} Former
{¶ 61} What, then, was the purpose of former
{¶ 62} “Exemption” from liability presumes that liability attaches in the first instance. Preemption does not provide an “exemption.” Instead, it blocks application of laws so that liability cannot attach under the preempted law. See Harris, 110 F.3d at 1415. Had Congress intended to address preemption in the
{¶ 63} Courts have consistently rejected the notion that savings clauses like former
NATIONAL UNIFORMITY IS A GOAL OF THE ACT REQUIRING IMPLIED PREEMPTION OF STATE NO AIR BAG CLAIMS
{¶ 64} The majority concedes, as it must, that national uniformity of safety standards was a congressional goal in enacting the Safety Act. Nonetheless, the majority dismisses this goal as “ancillary” to Congress‘s “primary” and “overriding” goal of improved vehicle safety.
{¶ 65} There is no question that Congress enacted the Safety Act to improve vehicle safety. Both the language of the Act and the legislative history, however, demonstrate that Congress considered uniformity of safety standards an essential means to that end.
{¶ 66} As stated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Wood, 865 F.2d at 412, “[The] division of authority between state and federal government was part of Congress‘s chosen method for implementing the Safety Act. Congress believed that for the federal standards to be effective, they had to be uniform throughout the country. See
{¶ 67} Additionally, limited flexibility in choosing safety devices was a major objective of the Department of Transportation in promulgating FMVSS
{¶ 68} Because uniformity and flexibility are necessary components to the continuing vitality of the Act, I would adopt the approach taken by the First Circuit in Wood, 865 F.2d at 402, and applied by the majority of federal circuit courts—that the Act and FMVSS 208 impliedly preempt state “no air bag” claims. The ultimate reason for arriving at this conclusion was best stated by the Wood court in the following passage: “[W]e are convinced that Congress‘s purposes, as revealed in the Safety Act and in the legislative history, plainly imply a preemptive intent. The instant product liability claim alleging that the absence of an air bag rendered the vehicle‘s design faulty would, if upheld, clearly ‘stand as an obstacle’ to the regulatory scheme of the Safety Act. A state common law action sustaining the theory that a vehicle was defective because it lacked an air bag would, in effect, create a state safety standard related to the same aspect of performance of FMVSS 208 but not identical to FMVSS 208. Such an action is, in our view, impliedly preempted because it would effectively circumvent section 1392(d)‘s prohibition of nonidentical state standards covering the same aspect of performance as a federal safety standard. Allowing a common law action holding manufacturers liable for failing to install air bags in motor vehicles would be tantamount to establishing a
EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE REGARDING SEAT BELT DESIGN CHANGE IN 1992 ACCORD
{¶ 69} Initially, it is unimportant to the analysis that the trial court orally granted Honda‘s motion in limine to exclude evidence of implementation of air bags and subsequent design changes in the belt restraint system from model year 1990 Honda Accords to model year 1992 Accords and that there is no record to document the basis for that ruling. Reviewing courts must affirm the trial court‘s judgment if, upon review, any valid grounds are found to support that judgment. See Joyce v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 93, 96, 551 N.E.2d 172, 174. “[A] reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as the basis thereof.” Id.; State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 222, 631 N.E.2d 150, 154.
{¶ 70} Aside from the rule on subsequent remedial measures (Evid.R. 407), the court was required to determine whether the evidence was relevant to the issues being tried (Evid.R. 402) and, if relevant, whether that evidence nonetheless should be excluded on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or waste of time (Evid.R. 403). Evid.R. 104(A) establishes that admissibility questions such as Evid.R. 402 and 403 are for the court to decide. I believe that the trial court could have excluded the evidence solely on the basis of Evid.R. 403.
{¶ 71} Having properly determined that a claim premised on the absence of an air bag was preempted by federal law, the court was left to determine the relevance of a change in seat belt design that was inextricably tied to Honda‘s change of passive restraint mechanisms from automatic seat belts to air bags. Because of the Safety Act‘s preemptive effect, the only theory remaining for Minton was that the automatic shoulder belt used in 1990 Accords was defectively
{¶ 72} At trial, Minton introduced expert testimony that, had the 1990 Accord shoulder belt attachment been moved backwards by approximately seven inches, Minton‘s injuries could have been minimized. Minton later unsuccessfully attempted to introduce evidence that Honda designed its 1992 Accord shoulder belt attachment seven inches to the rear of its position in the 1990 Accord. As noted by the appellate court, the seat belt restraints of the 1990 and 1992 Accord were not truly comparable. The 1990 version was an automatic passive restraint mechanism, while the 1992 version was a manual belt, with an air bag acting as the passive restraint. Nevertheless, evidence of Honda‘s placement of the shoulder belt attachment in 1992 Accords is arguably relevant to demonstrate Honda‘s design change in the shoulder belt attachment geometry. Moreover, under the authority of McFarland v. Bruno Mach. Corp. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 305, 626 N.E.2d 659, Evid.R. 407 does not prohibit introduction of evidence of the later change.
{¶ 73} As a second step in determining whether the evidence should be admitted, however, the court was required to apply Evid.R. 403(A):
“Exclusion mandatory. Although relevant, evidence is not admissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury.”
{¶ 74} Having noted the limited relevance of the design change, I believe that the appellate court noted proper reasons why Evid.R. 403 mandated exclusion of the change in the 1992 Accord‘s shoulder belt attachment:
“In our opinion, * * * the difference in the two systems [automatic shoulder belt versus manual belt with air bag] would necessarily precipitate the introduction of evidence regarding the change from a passive shoulder belt to a manually operated shoulder belt, and thus would require the introduction of evidence regarding the reason for the design change (i.e., the conversion to airbag
technology, which was a federally mandated option). * * * [W]e find that evidence of the subsequent remedial change in the shoulder belt restraint system is inadmissible because it would inevitably lead to the jury‘s becoming aware of the fact that Honda switched to an airbag passive restraint system, thereby injecting an issue—the failure to have used the airbag system in the 1990 model Accord—that was preempted by federal law. “We note that Minton was permitted to introduce expert testimony regarding the alleged design defect in the 1990 seat belt system, including, specifically, evidence regarding typical shoulder belt attachments in comparable systems of other automobile manufacturers. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court reasonably exercised the discretion inherent in its power to rule upon the admissibility of evidence to prevent the interjection of the omitted airbag theory of design defect, while not unduly restricting Minton‘s ability to show, through her use of evidence of comparable shoulder belt passive restraint systems in cars manufactured by Honda‘s competitors, that it was feasible to have designed the system with an attachment point closer to the driver‘s shoulder.”
{¶ 75} In addition to the opportunity to demonstrate feasible alternative designs of comparable passive shoulder belt attachments, Minton also was permitted to introduce expert testimony that the upper attachment point of the manual belt on an earlier model Honda Civic provided a safer design than the attachment point for the automatic shoulder belt on the 1990 Accord.
{¶ 76} Accordingly, whatever slight probative value may attach to the difference in shoulder belt attachment points between the 1990 and 1992 model Honda Accords was substantially outweighed by that evidence‘s danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, and misleading of the jury. Exclusion, therefore, was proper.
CONCLUSION
MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.