The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in O'Hara concluded: "Because the text and commentary on FMVSS 205 show that it is best understood as a minimum safety standard, we hold that the O'Hara's common law negligence and strict liability claims are not preempted." O'Hara v. GM, (slip opinion at p. 15) (2007).

As the Court acknowledged in its decision this is an issue that has not previously been ruled upon by other Circuit Courts or by any state court. The effect of this decision will be far reaching and will allow claims for injuries cause by defective products to proceed even in the presence of federal regulations, as long as the claims do not involve conflict preemption that can arise in on of two ways: "when compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility" or "when state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." O'Hara, (slip opinion at p. 7) (2007).

Injured victims of defective products will not find the courthouse doors shut merely because a federal regulation sets a "minimum safety standard." For defendant manufacturers to rely on federal preemption to dismiss common law claims for defective products, they must now show either a physical impossibility of complying with both federal and state regulations or that the state law acts as an obstacle to accomplishment and execution of the purposes and objectives of Congress.

Get the full decision at:  http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-10498-CV0.wpd.pdf