Carden v. General Motors Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the NHTSA identified particular policy reasons for its decision to allow manufacturers the option of selecting between the two seat belt designs, and included this option as part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme”
• finding preemption because the plaintiffs’ claim “would foreclose a deliberate option left to manufacturers under Standard 208, namely the option of installing manual lap-only seat belts”
• discussing the history of FMVSS 208 as it relates to restraints in the rear center seat position during the period applicable to the 1989 Excel in the present case
• tort claims challenging design of seat belts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).