Federal Judge Throws Out Window Glazing Claim As
Pre-empted
O'Hara v. General Motors Corporation (N.D. Texas), April 25, 2006

Chief Judge A. Joe Fish of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled on August 25, 2006 that the plaintiffs in O'Hara v. General Motors Corporation could not go forward against GM with their claim that their 2004 Chevy Tahoe was defective for using tempered glass instead of laminated glass in the side windows. In a 20-page opinion, Judge Fish granted GM summary judgment, holding that any claim challenging GM's decision to use tempered glass would frustrate the safety policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and was therefore impliedly federally pre-empted. The judge determined that NHTSA's decision to preserve the specific option for tempered glass in side windows was part of a regulatory strategy to protect public safety that would be undermined if claims like that brought against GM by the O'Hara's were to go forward.

The case arose of a partial ejection of the O'Hara's daughter, Holly O'Hara, a nine year old riding in the front passenger seat. Her mother, Michelle O'Hara, lost control of the vehicle and rolled it on to its side on an access road near Round Rock, Texas. The O'Haras were represented by Leon Russell of Dallas and Pat Ardis from the Memphis firm Wolff Ardis. GM was represented by David Prichard, Karl Rivas, Tony Avey and Daniela Gonzales-Aldape of Prichard, Hawkins, McFarland & Young.

Results obtained depend on the particular facts of each case.