FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. - Filing on behalf of the plaintiff, University of Arkansas law professor Robert B. Leflar authored an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief in the lawsuit Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., a case argued Dec. 7 before the U.S. Supreme Court and likely to have far-reaching ramifications in the field of product safety.

In writing the brief for himself and three other products-liability law specialists, Leflar asked the highest court to uphold an injured driver’s right to sue an auto manufacturer for not equipping her car with an airbag in a year federal regulations did not require automakers to do so.

The issue has split the state and federal courts, Leflar said.

"The key issue in the case is whether federal regulations pre-empt, or override, the plaintiff’s state law claim that her car was defectively designed," he explained. "The brief takes the position that just because Honda met the minimum federal safety standard does not bar the plaintiff’s right to seek relief under traditional state liability laws."

The case has received nationwide attention from business and law publications, which are following the case closely. The National Law Journal’s Dec. 13 issue includes an article on the case and quotes Leflar as saying, ".Plaintiffs fear that a pro-preemption holding in Geier would undermine a vast domain of state tort law. [It could affect] pesticide, boat safety, consumer product and every other kind of products liability case" involving injury-causing defective products meeting minimum federal standards.

Leflar, a nationally known products-liability specialist, not only teaches in this area of consumer law but has also written numerous articles on the subject for various professional journals. He wrote the brief for the Geier lawsuit as a public service after colleagues at the Public Citizens Litigation Group in Washington, D.C., asked him to become involved in the case.

The case began in 1992 when 17-year-old Alexis Geier lost control of her 1987 Honda Accord and hit a tree while driving in Washington, D.C. Although she was wearing a lap belt and shoulder harness at the time of the accident, she suffered serious head and other injuries.

The car was manufactured before federal regulations made airbags mandatory. According to federal regulations at that time, at least 10 percent of ’87 model automobiles had to be equipped with passive restraints, such as an airbag or automatic seatbelt. Geier’s car had only the belt and shoulder harness, which was permitted under the federal rule.

"But an airbag, which was a technologically and economically feasible safety feature, could have prevented or mitigated her injuries," said Leflar.

In 1995, Geier and her parents sued American Honda Motor Co. under the District of Columbia’s common law, claiming the car was defectively designed because of the lack of a driver’s-side airbag. Honda contended the lawsuit was pre-empted by the 1966 National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the federal regulation that made airbags optional for automakers in 1987.

Geier’s attorney, Arthur Bryant of Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, argued that the Safety Act preserves all common-law claims by explicitly providing that "compliance with any federal motor vehicle standard does not exempt any person from any liability under common law."

A federal judge ruled for American Honda, and the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld. These judges said American Honda’s compliance with the federal regulations shielded the company from liability, because holding it responsible for failing to install an airbag would "interfere with the federal government’s policy at the time of making air bags only one of several options car manufacturers could choose to comply with the passive restraint requirement."

Leflar’s brief counters there is no evidence that state-law damage judgments would significantly interfere with federal policy.

A decision in this case is expected by summer.

-30-