Texas High Court Cites Federal Pre-emption In Blocking State Tort Claim
The Texas Supreme Court provided a victory to the maker of BIC lighters when it ruled that a tort claim against the company could not be brought because of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Act, Texas Lawyer reported.
The state high court concluded that the federal law pre-empted a tort case against the company brought in state court by a mother whose 6-year-old daughter was burned when another child accidentally set fire to her dress while playing. The court ruled that the federal law allows some tort claims, but not those that conflict with the federal regulations.
ACS recently hosted a panel discussion on regulatory preemption.
Written By:Harper Jean Tobin On May 8, 2008 2:05 PM
Post A Comment / Question
Note that the Texas court relied on what it explicitly termed the "policy analysis" of Riegel v. Medtronic (U.S. Feb. 20, 2008).
Most remarkable, though, is that the court simply disregarded a federal saving clause explicitly intended to preserve common law liability, such as in this suit. The court based this disregard on the SCOTUS's 2000 Geier decision (preemption of tort claim re: airbags), which said that a saving clause doesn't alter implied conflict preemption analysis.
Which means, in essence, that even if Congress goes out of its way to say something is not preempted, it can still be preempted if the court thinks it's good policy to do so.