Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: FRED SCHULTZ Greene & Schultz Bloomington, Indiana ROBERT L. HABUSH DANIEL A. ROTTIER DONALD H. SLAVIK VIRGINIA M. ANTOINE Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. Milwaukee, Wisconsin ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: NICHOLAS C. PAPPAS JULIA BLACKWELL GELINAS LUCY R. DOLLENS Locke Reynolds LLP Indianapolis, Indiana A. ERIN DWYER TIMOTHY A. DANIELS Figari & Davenport, L.L.P. Dallas, Texas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
JENEAN ROLAND and CARL J. ROLAND, a minor, b/n/f JENEAN ROLAND, Appellants-Defendants, vs. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Appellee-Plaintiff, KRISTEN SHELTON and GENASYS, L.C., a foreign limited liability corporation, Defendants below. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

FILED
Mar 03 2008, 9:05 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

No. 09A05-0708-CV-425

APPEAL FROM THE CASS SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Thomas C. Perrone, Judge

Cause No. 09D01-0408-CT-00018

MARCH 3, 2008 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION HOFFMAN, Senior Judge

Plaintiffs-Appellants Jenean Roland and Carl J. Roland, a minor, b/n/f Jenean Roland ("the Rolands") appeal the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment pertaining to claims against Defendants-Appellees General Motors Corporation, a foreign corporation ("General Motors"), Kristen Shelton ("Shelton"), and Genasys, L.C., a foreign limited liability corporation ("Genasys").1 We affirm. The Rolands raise four issues for our review, which we consolidate and restate as: I. Whether the trial court erred in determining that federal law pre-empted state law claims that a passenger car's rear center seat occupant restraint system was defectively and negligently designed because it had a lap-only seatbelt, rather than a lap/shoulder belt, that would have prevented injuries to the occupant of that seat. Whether the trial court erred in determining that federal law pre-empted state law claims that the rear center occupant restraint system was defectively and negligently designed because it was equipped with a manual adjusting devise, rather than a retractor. Whether the trial court erred in determining that federal law pre-empted state law misrepresentation and failure-to-warn claims.

II.

III.

1

Shelton and Genasys are not parties to this appeal.

2

On July 3, 2004, Jenean Roland was driving a 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier convertible when it was struck by a vehicle driven by Shelton and insured by Genasys. At the time of the collision, Jenean's ten-year-old son, C.J., was seated in the center seat of the rear passenger compartment of the Cavalier. The seat was equipped with a lap belt, which C.J. was wearing at the time of the collision. C.J. suffered serious, disabling injuries. General Motors' manufacture and final assembly of the Cavalier driven by Jenean occurred on or about August 25, 1997. The vehicle's center rear seating position was equipped with a Type-1 two-point (lap only) safety belt with a manual adjusting device. The vehicle complied with all Federal Motor Vehicle Standards ("FMVSS"), including FMVSS 208, which gave General Motors the choice to install a Type-1 or Type-2 (lap/shoulder) safety belt with either an automatic or manual adjusting device. The Rolands filed suit asserting that the Cavalier was defectively and negligently designed because the center rear seat was not equipped with a lap/shoulder belt. General Motors responded by filing a motion for partial summary judgment, in which it asserted that any claim predicated on General Motor's choice of the lap belt option in the center rear seat was pre-empted by federal law. In its supporting brief, General Motors alleged that the Rolands' claims were pre-empted by FMVSS 208 (49 C.F.R.

Download Jenean Roland and Carl J. Roland v. Kristen Shelton.pdf

Indiana Law