49 C.F.R. § 571.1
Scope
This part contains the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment established under section 103 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (80 Stat. 718).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case: Duran v. Gen. Motors Corp., 688 P.2d 779 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984).
Duran v. Gen. Motors Corp., 688 P.2d 779 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). “In addition to promoting uniformity, the use of negligence principles would relieve the jury of having to second guess what a proper design should have been.”
Michael LaCurtis v. Express Med. Transporters, 856 F.3d 571 (8th Cir. 2017). “See 49 C.F.R. § 571.1 . What’s more, there is nothing in the record to indicate that either the Transportation Secretary or the FMCSA has examined the TCA and weighed in on its meaning or its possible effect on the MCA exemption at all, much less that they have clearly said the…”
Lynda D. Perry v. Mercedes Benz of North Am., Inc. & Abc Ins. Co., 957 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1992). “The NHTSA fulfilled its responsibility by promulgating the MVSS published at 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.1 -.302. The MVSS that is relevant to this case is 49 C.”
Dawson v. Chrysler Corp., 630 F.2d 950 (3rd Cir. 1980). “§ 1396 (1976), and set forth in accompanying regulations, 49 C.F.R. § 571.1 (1979). *958 Compliance with the safety standards promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, however, does not relieve Chrysler of liability in this action.”
Hernandez-Gomez v. Leonardo, 884 P.2d 183 (Ariz. 1994). “The federal *299 safety standards appear at 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.1 to 571.302. The relevant safety standards are “Occupant Crash Protection,” 49 C.”
Schlotz v. Hyundai Motor Co., 557 N.W.2d 613 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). “The Secretary, in turn, delegated this duty to the National Highway Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA), which promulgated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) at 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.1 -.304 (1995). FMVSS 208 is the standard governing occupant crash protection.”
Rapp v. Singh, 152 F. Supp. 2d 694 (E.D. Pa. 2001). “See 49 C.F.R. § 571.1 ; Def.’s Mot. at 6. Since 1967, both the NHTSA and the FHWA have studied the underride issue to determine the performance criteria for an optimum rear impact guard standard.”
Richard F. Dawson & Diana Dawson, Individually & Diana Dawson as Parent & Nat. Guardian of Bryan Dawson, a Minor v. Chrysler Corp., Defendant-Third Party v. Twp. of Pennsauken, Delta Leasing Co. & Cherry Hill Dodge, Inc., Third Party v. Twp. of Pennsauken, Fourth Party v. Cumberland Mut. Fire Ins. Co., Fourth Party v. Peerless Ins. Co., Fourth Party Chrysler Corp., 630 F.2d 950 (3rd Cir. 1980). “These parties are not involved in the present appeal 2 See 49 C.F.R. 571.1 (1979) 3 Deformation is a term used in this context to describe the collapsing of the body and frame of a vehicle upon impact with a stationary object 4 The judgment as originally filed by the district…”
Lacurtis v. Express Med. Transporters, Inc., 189 F. Supp. 3d 903 (E.D. Mo. 2016). “Indeed, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act is administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), a separate body within the DOT than the body that administers the Motor Carrier Act, the Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“MCSA”).”
Shelton v. Hyundai Motor Am. CA2/5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “( 49 C.F.R. § 571.1 .) 4 ordinary consumer would have expected and that it suffered from a manufacturing defect when it left defendant’s possession.”
Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Sarah Milburn (Tex. 2024). “§ 30101 ; see also 49 C.F.R. § 571.1 . Most pertinent here is Safety Standard 208, which “specifies 16 performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes.”
Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc. v. Sarah Milburn, John Milburn, & Carolyn Milburn (Tex. App. 2024). “§ 30101 ; see also 49 C.F.R. § 571.1 . Most pertinent here is Safety Standard 208, which “specifies 16 performance requirements for the protection of vehicle occupants in crashes.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.