The Texas Supreme Court, since the turn of the Millennium, never met a defendant it didn’t like. In an opinion delivered on February 1, it once again proved that to be the case, when it reversed and rendered judgment in yet another class action case, DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman.
But wait there’s more: There is a dissent! And the dissent is written by the Chief Judge!! And there are three more justices on the dissent, making this a 5-4 decision!!!
Because the majority decision is allegedly based on standing law, it’s important to understand the basis of the case. The seat belts on plaintiffs’ cars (and trucks — this is Texas, after all) could accidentally come unlatched in an accident. Since none of them was unfortunate enough to have already been hurt when the belts failed in a collision, plaintiffs only asked for economic damages — the cost of replacing defective belts with ones that actually worked.
Telling the plaintiffs, “You’re not dead yet,” the majority held that the possibility of harm was just too darn small, so no standing.
When plaintiffs attempted to point out that this would be a merits decision in any normal court, the majority responded that “standing, and the concrete injury it requires, is quite distinct from the merits of a claim and the injury required to prove it.”
Okay, let me see if I understand this. If I have a meritorious claim and can prove my injury, in Texas I am simply out of luck if five justices decide that I am whining about unimportant things.
The Chief Justice, in dissent, concluded that, “Today, the Court conducts an extraordinary and unworkable reading of both pleading and precedent . . .. We have never before stretched the doctrine this far. The Court’s opinion reveals a visceral distaste for class actions.”
”Oh, yeah?“ say his five brethren (yup — all men; the lone woman on the court is in dissent). And here’s the rebuttal “We simply think that the rights of ten million vehicle owners and lessees across the United States should not be adjudicated in an action brought by three plaintiffs who cannot show more than the merest possibility of injury to themselves.“ An interesting argument in rebuttal, since it seems to provide support for the position asserted.
Okay, let me see if I understand this. The majority does not have a visceral distaste for class actions — it simply doesn’t believe they should exist at all.
Another point of note came fairly early, when the majority wrote, “In designing seatbelt buckles, the risk of injury from accidental release of easy-to-unlatch buckles must be balanced against the risk of injury from non-use of hard-to-unlatch buckles, for either way, there is risk. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is charged with being sure that balance is struck in the right place for vehicles sold throughout the country. The decision is not one for a jury in one state or another to make for the rest of the nation. NHTSA has never required that the Gen-3 buckles be recalled and replaced.”
Absolutely right, your honors! Why in the world should we respect the rules of court or the fundamental tenets of our judicial system, if NHTSA hasn’t done anything?
Thank goodness Texas has a radically activist court willing to leap into the breach to protect someone. Pity it’s a German multinational.
