Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
08-1314	Cal. Ct. App. 4th	Nov 3, 2010 Tr.Aud.	Feb 23, 2011	8-0	Breyer	OT 2010

Holding: State tort suits alleging that car manufacturers should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts, rather than simply lap belts, on rear inner seats are not preempted by federal auto safety standards. (Kagan, J., recused).

Plain English Holding: State tort suits alleging that car manufacturers should have installed lap-and-shoulder belts, rather than simply lap belts, on rear inner seats are not preempted by federal auto safety standards. (Kagan, J., recused)

Judgment: Reversed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on February 23, 2011. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Opinion analysis: Preemption trimmed in automobile product liability litigation (James Beck)
• Argument recap: Shoulder belts are like airbags - or not? (James Beck)
• Argument Preview: The preemptive effect of NHTSA safety requirements (Anna Christensen)

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioners Delbert Williamson et al.
• Brief for Respondents Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
• Reply brief for Petitioners Delbert Williamson et al.

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for the United States in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the States of Illinois, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming and the District of Columbia in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Public Justice, P.C. in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for American Association for Justice in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for Attorneys Information Exchange Group in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc., in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc., and the National Automobile Dealers Association Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Grocery Manufacturers Association, National Association of Manufacturers, American Tort Reform Association, and Lawyers for Civil Justice in Support of Respondents
• Brief for DRI"”The Voice of the Defense Bar in Support of Respondents
• Brief for United States Chamber of Commerce in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association in Support of Respondents

Certiorari-Stage Documents

• Opinion Below (Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three)
• Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
• Brief in opposition (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the United States
• Supplemental brief of respondents