According to the Chinese Drywall Complaint Center, it’s estimated over 500 million pounds of drywall (…or sheetrock) containing a variety of toxins were imported. Ordinarily, drywall for domestic construction is manufactured entirely in the U.S.  In response to increased demand though, the import of Chinese drywall began around 2001 and accelerated rapidly following the disastrous hurricanes in 2004 and 2005 (…especially Hurricane Katrina).

By all available evidence, import of Chinese drywall ended in 2007 when the housing boom started to cool.

The damage was done though, especially in homes in the Deep South. Figures show Florida was the hardest hit state but the toxic drywall is considered to be a national problem. Any area with high heat and humidity – which we see plenty of here – can cause the toxic drywall to become a real nuisance, even real danger.

It’s also been reported that homes in Canada may have toxic drywall imported from China as well.

Toxic drywall can be quite noticeable if conditions are right. Laboratory samples have identified emissions of carbon disulfide, carbonyl sulfide and hydrogen sulfide – each are substances that pose tremendous hazards to human health.

These emissions smell like rotten eggs, which is certainly noticeable, and unpleasant.

Homeowners with toxic drywall have reported a variety of health problems, including asthma attacks, chronic coughing, difficulty breathing, chronic headaches and sinus issues.

Corroded A/C Coils

In the home itself, the toxic drywall causes all sorts of issues, many of which are found in copper wiring and components found in electrical wiring, A/C systems and even electronic devices like TVs and radios. Reactions with hydrogen sulfide cause copper components to turn black and powdery.

It’s even been reported that silver jewelry can be ruined by this reaction.

Absent of these reactions, the only way to find out if you have toxic drywall is to tear sections off and look on the other side of the drywall. It’s estimated that toxic drywall from 20 companies was imported into the U.S. between 2001 and 2008. Many of these companies, like Knauff-Tianjin, are currently facing several lawsuits.

If you discover your home has toxic Chinese drywall, it can cost thousands to repair. While some homeowners in Florida and elsewhere have received compensation, the process in quite chaotic, especially considering the lack of federal involvement in the issue.

If you’re looking to purchase a home built between 2001 and 2008, be sure you get a thorough inspection to insure the home doesn’t have toxic Chinese drywall. This is especially important if the home is a foreclosure.

And if you’re experiencing problems in your home and believe it’s due to toxic drywall, click on over to the Chinese Drywall Complaint Center for more information. There you can find sample letters to provide your lender and more about what to look for in your home.

While Tennessee and North Carolina hasn’t experienced the brunt of this problem, there are still many homes in our region that have this toxic substance. If you’ve been adversely affected, contact Tennessee product liability attorneys at Gilreath & Associates to discuss your options today.

As far as traumatic brain injury, a common occurrence among motorcycle accident victims, motorcycle helmets are 67% effective. According to the same study from the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System, motorcyclists not wearing a helmet were three times more likely to suffer a brain injury in the event of an accident.

Despite all the warnings and evidence of their value in the event of an accident, only 58% of motorcycle riders wear a helmet. Many simply refuse to wear a helmet when riding – all for a variety of reasons.

As far as finding a helmet that provides the protection you need, there are 2 well known standards in the U.S.

One set of standards come from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Helmets that comply with this standard have a “DOT approved” sticker affixed. The manufacturer does their own testing of course but the Transportation Department also does compliance testing and posts results online.

In a nutshell, approved helmets have a certain thickness and are designed to absorb a significant amount of energy, prevent most penetration and include a fastening system that will withstand massive force.

DOT compliant helmets will have a thick inner liner, usually a 1” thick polystyrene foam material. Although it isn’t always visible, you should be able to feel around for the inner liner. A compliant helmet will also have sturdy chin strap and rivets and will not have anything extending further than 2/10 of an inch from the helmet.

DOT compliant helmets will also include “DOT” somewhere on the outside to indicate the helmet meets U.S. DOT FMVSS 218 standards.

Other standards are issued by private organizations like the Snell Memorial Foundation and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

We can tell you from our work and personal experiences, motorcycle helmets are invaluable in the event of an accident. As motorcycle attorneys in Tennessee, we can think of too many stories where an owner or passenger suffered paralyzing injury and death.

There’s no doubt that if more were wearing a certified motorcycle helmet, their lived would have been saved lives or the severity of their injuries reduced.

Let’s say you sell your used car to a friend of a friend. However, you forget or otherwise do not transfer the title to their name.

After they’ve taken possession, the person now driving your old car commits a crime, gets into an accident or racks up a whole bunch of parking tickets. You may be thinking “…well, that’s their problem.”

It would be if you transferred legal ownership of the property to them in a timely manner.

But if you didn’t transfer ownership before any incidents occurred, you could end up being held liable for their malfeasance.

Here at the Gilreath Law Firm, we hear stories all the time of people who didn’t transfer the title to a car or motorcycle that they sold or gifted to someone.

In the end, it cost the former owner thousands of dollars and countless hours to deal with the problem.

In Tennessee, you are required to transfer a title as soon as possible after gifting or selling a car or motorcycle. A title is essentially a legal document that shows vehicle ownership.

To complete a title transfer, you must do the following:

1. Complete and sign the title as the “seller”
2. Be sure the buyer completes and signs the title as the “buyer”
3. In Tennessee, complete and sign an odometer disclosure statement with the buyer
4. Provide the buyer with any applicable emissions testing information
5. Take your license plate off the vehicle
6. Give the buyer a copy of the title and the odometer disclosure statement. They will need to take these documents to their County Clerk’s office to register the vehicle in their name

Although a Bill of Sale isn’t required in Tennessee, it’s good to have one anyway to prove you transferred ownership of the vehicle in case the buyer doesn’t fulfill their obligations to register the vehicle in their name.

Again, simply giving someone the keys and letting them drive off in the sunset could wind up causing you some major problems.

Be sure to cover yourself from any potential liability by properly transferring ownership of your vehicle. Even though the process seems cumbersome, it is worth doing to ensure you’re not troubled by someone else’s mistakes.  Check out this page for complete information on transferring ownership of a car or motorcycle in Tennessee.

Neglecting this important task could end up costing you dearly. Cover your bases by properly transferring legal title to the car or motorcycle’s new owner.

Video footage, especially from surveillance cameras, is one type of evidence that can make proving your case much easier.

Let’s take a look at this example of a holiday season shopper who suffered painful injuries at the mall. Having footage from the mall’s security cameras was instrumental in proving her case.

Julie was shopping at a mall for gifts for her family but her trip suddenly turned into a tumultuous affair.

While coming down an escalator, Julie slipped and fell at the end. She used her right hand to brace from the impact of the fall. She felt pain in her right hand and was unable to get up for a moment. Other shoppers certainly noticed the incident and notified mall security.

Although a report was filed, Julie declined medical attention and decided to go home.

Later in the night though, Julie started experiencing excruciating pain so her husband took her to the emergency room. After a few x-rays, doctors were able to determine that Julie had sustained some pretty serious injuries, specifically a broken arm, wrist and broken pelvis. Surgery was ordered and while it was successful, Julie required 5 months of physical therapy.

What caused Julie to fall and sustain these injuries?

It was later determined that some spilled soda at the base of the escalator was to blame for the incident.

According to surveillance footage of the area, the hazard was present a whole 2 hours before the incident. The footage also showed that mall employees had taken NO action clean up the spill or warns customers of any hazards

In this respect, the owners and managers of the mall failed in their duty to inspect their premises, warn shoppers of any danger and take measures to address the hazard. In light of this failure, the owners and managers of the mall are liable for Julie’s medical bills.

Upon this discovery, the mall’s management company offered Julie $5000 in damages (…through an insurance policy for such circumstances).

However, Julie’s medical expenses – the surgery and physical therapy – totaled $35,000.

As you can see, $5000 can hardly make a dent on that.

Julie then took the next step and hired a premises liability attorney to try and obtain compensation for all of her expenses. At first, $140k was requested but a counter-offer of $35k was sent back by the management company. Next, Julie’s attorney countered with a settlement offer of $125k.

With a trial seeming inevitable, the judge presiding over the case ordered the two parties to make one final effort at negotiation.

After 6 hours of discussion, the two parties settled on compensation of $75,000 – $50k was to be paid by the management company while the remaining $25k was to be paid by the mall’s owners.

During settlement negotiations, you can request any video surveillance footage to prove your case. If the owner’s refuse to turn over the footage, you will have to file a lawsuit to obtain the footage.

As you can see from Julie’s case, having video footage made proving her case much easier. Her premises liability attorney was able to use this too in the case’s settlement negotiations. And as we also see from this case, there can be two parties liable in a case. In our example here, it was the mall owners as well as the management company they hired.

Despite overwhelming evidence, defendants like this too often delay making a sufficient offer in hopes you don’t have the resources to pursue a full claim, which is why hiring a premises liability or personal injury attorney is vitally important.

Premises liability attorneys at Nashville’s Gilreath & Associates possess decades of experience obtaining compensation for injury victims like Julie. If you’ve sustained an injury due to someone else’s negligence, it’s vitally important you obtain legal representation to make sure you’re sufficiently compensated for medical expenses, lost wages and pain and suffering.

This “financial” stress can eventually lead to depression and desperation and prompt you to make ill-advised decisions in the hopes of fixing your money situation.

One of these ill-advised moves is to work with a structured settlement company that offers immediate, lump-sum payouts. In exchange, you agree to sell the company your future payments from any settlements.

The problem of course is this comes at a pretty steep price. Typically, structured settlement companies will only offer a fraction of the money you would otherwise receive from your eventual settlement.

If you’re considering a structured settlement for whatever reason, consult with your personal injury attorney and any structured settlement professionals they’ve worked with. Or, you can speak to a trusted financial adviser on how best to sell future payments.

Here are a few things you need to consider:

• Don’t take selling your future payouts lightly
• Explore all other options before deciding to sell your future payouts
• If selling is the only option or even the right option, only work with reputable companies who use a fair and transparent process

Even with laws and statutes in place, many structured settlement companies are able to push through unsavory deals. For example, many states require judicial approval for all structured settlement transactions. The court is charged with ensuring the discount rate and any fees and expenses are fair and in the best interest of the payee (..you) and his/her dependents.

So while there are some protections built in, sound advice is still key.

Structured settlement companies that help accident victims with immediate cash needs are certainly valuable, provided they follow all laws and make sure their customers are given the information they need to make an informed decision.

However, bad apples do exist so only seek out the most reputable structured settlement firms to work with.

Original story appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Safety Report

While airbags have helped reduce the physical impacts of car collisions, they do carry some danger.

Anyone with a newborn is certainly, or at least should be, aware that their child should be seated in the back of the vehicle. If they must sit in the front (…like in a single-cab pickup), the airbag should be disabled. Elderly folks too have to be careful around airbags since the impact of one could prove devastating.

Even though airbags have helped make cars safer, they’ve also proved to be very dangerous in the event they malfunction.

“We’ve seen a lot of cases where the person has a fender bender, the airbag goes off and hits them in the face, and they’ve lost an eye,” explains Raymond Bodiford, senior partner at the Bodiford Law Group in Orlando, Florida.

Below are some of the common malfunctions that can occur with an airbag:

• Failure to deploy
• Accidental deployment
• Late deployment

While many may be familiar with the first two types of malfunctions, the third can pose serious risks as well. Late deployment basically means the airbag deploys after the accident has occurred.

“It can actually cause additional damage because the force of the accident has usually positioned the occupant too close to the airbag at the time it deploys,” explains Bodiford.

One example of defective airbags can be found in Honda vehicles built between 2001 and 2003. Starting in 2008, thousands of Honda vehicles were recalled because of a defective airbag inflator on the driver’s side. This defect was said to have caused 12 injuries and at least one death.

Since the initial recall, Honda has expanded it to include various Accord, Civic, Odyssey, CR-V, Pilot and Acura models. The most recent recall was issued by the company on December 2, 2011.

Most injuries from airbags occur in the chest area since it deploys at over 100 mph. Deploying airbags though can also cause burns. More serious injuries can occur in the neck area if the driver/passenger is of a certain height.

Although rare, deploying airbags can cause fatality. From 1990-2000, over 175 fatalities from airbags were reported by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration. The agency though estimates that of the approximately 3.3 million airbag deployments, more than 6,377 lives have been saved and countless injuries prevented.

Little did they know, the plane they were boarding would prove to be much more dangerous than the skydiving itself.

Shortly after taking off, one of the engines on the small plane caught fire. With a disabled engine, the plane struggled to gain altitude and floated over the treetops before crashing. All told, five occupants lost their lives, including Delacroix. Dear was the only passenger in the plane to escape any serious injury.

Following each plane crash, an investigation is done to determine its cause.

In the months following the tragic incident, it was determined the engine fire was caused by a compressor turbine blade manufactured by Doncasters, Inc.

The engine manufacturer, Pratt & Whitney Canada, had exact requirements on which type of metal should be used. Doncasters though used a less expensive metal alloy – one that couldn’t handle the heat, force and speed of the engine.

Parents of most of the deceased joined forces and hired attorneys Gary C. Robb and Anita Robb of Kansas City, MO. Family members of a couple of the other deceased filed a separate suit in federal court. The other two passengers (…besides Dear) who survived with paralyzing injuries sued separately but settled prior to any trial.

The turbine blade in questions “was only in the engine less than 2,400 flight hours, which is less than half the time before it was scheduled for its first maintenance check,” according to Robb.

But during the investigation/discovery phase of the case, the plaintiffs learned more about the company’s actions and determined them to be more egregious than first thought.

For example, out of 5,000 employees on staff at Doncasters, not one of them was an actual engineer.

And although the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had approved the turbine blade based on test results provided by Doncasters, it was later determined that the company didn’t report that the blade had previously failed internal performance tests.

Through their investigation, attorneys for the deceased also learned that turbine blades from the company had caused at least 8 previous engine failures.

In order to present an airtight case, attorneys for the plaintiffs called in multiple experts to testify. Engineers, metallurgists, an FAA representative and even an engineer from Pratt & Whitney, the engine manufacturer testified. The representative from Pratt & Whitney testified that they would have never knowingly used a blade made of that particular alloy “…because it could not withstand the engine’s operation.”

Another expert testified about pre-impact terror and described the fear passengers likely experienced when they realized the plane was going to crash.

Despite all of this testimony, the most significant part came when a Doncasters corporate representative testified. Robb says that the company’s defense though may have been the convincing factor for the jury. The company didn’t call any engineers or witnesses to testify that the turbine was safe or had been designed safely.

After a three-week trial, $48 million was awarded – $4 million to each family in compensatory damages and $28 million in punitive damages.

After the verdict was read, several jurors expressed anger toward the parts maker.

“They understood that the company cared far more about profit than it did about safety,” comments Robb.

Although he expects the company to appeal, Robb says the verdict will serve as a powerful warning to other companies.

“Aircraft parts manufacturers will learn that they can’t cut corners on safety, because if they do, they will be caught,” comments Robb.

Aviation accidents can be quite scary and deadly, even in a small plane like the one used in the skydiving excursion. Pilot error, mechanical failure/defects are just a couple of ways accidents can occur. If you’ve lost a loved one or were seriously injured in a plane crash, aviation accident attorneys at Knoxville’s Gilreath & Associates possess years of experience representing families affected by a tragedy like this.

To learn more, visit us online or call our offices at (800) 637-7024 today.

Original story appeared in the August, 2011 issue of Trial magazine

No state though has banned cell phone use outright for regular drivers. Those on learner’s permits, school bus drivers and truckers (…in Tennessee) are prohibited from using their phones while driving.

The larger issue with cell phones behind the wheel is of course distracted driving, which is considered to be the cause of many accidents. As longtime drivers ourselves, we know how cell phones can be a distraction while in traffic.

For me personally, receiving a call while driving is distracting enough!!

Below are 10 easy steps you can take to avoid being distracted while behind the wheel. Following these simple guidelines can go a long way to keeping you and your family safe on the road.

1. Before you get in the car, turn OFF your cell phone
2. Have a custom voicemail and let callers know you will call them back when you’re free (…and not driving)
3. If you need to make a call, pull off the road
4. If the call can’t wait, ask a passenger to make the call
5. Do NOT text, surf the Internet or read e-mail while driving under any circumstance!!
6. Be familiar with your state and local laws
7. Before leaving on a trip, program your GPS device, review maps and read directions. Know where you’re going before you go
8. Be sure any pets are secure before you drive
9. Avoid heated conversations with fellow passengers
10. Avoid any activity that can take your mind and eyes off the road

Although laws restricting cell phone use are a positive step, they don’t necessarily translate into reduced fatalities caused by distracted driving. According to a recent report from the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, no evidence that banning cell phone use while driving is effective.

However, cell phone use isn’t the only way you can be distracted while driving. Eating, talking, using a GPS, grooming, etc. etc. are all ways you can be distracted behind the wheel.

According to statistics compiled by Oklahoma Law, distracted drivers are 23 times more likely to cause an accident. Drunk drivers on the other hand are only 7 times as likely to cause one.

Put in that context, distracted driving can be quite dangerous.

In 2009, 16% of car crash deaths could be attributed to driver distraction. More staggering though, the numbers suggest up to 80% of the fatalities could have involved the distraction itself.

The important takeaway – be mindful of your safety and that of your passengers. Maintain focus on the road at all times.

If you’re involved in an accident with a distracted driver, you may have grounds for a legal claim. To learn more about your particular case, contact Nashville car accident attorneys at Gilreath & Associates today for a free consultation.

Original article appeared in the Fall 2001 issue of the Safety Report

Rather than basing their recommendations on seat type, the new guidelines are by age. They generally recommend parents keep their child in each type of seat for as long as possible before moving to the next size.

To see the differences, here are the old guidelines:

• Under 1 year of age – required infant to be in a rear-facing seat
• 1-4 years of age (…or up to 40 pounds) – Children can be forward-facing provided they’re in a safety seat with a 5-point harness
• 4-8 years of age (…or 40-80 pounds) – Kids should be secured in what’s called a belt-positioning booster seat

The new guidelines are a bit more extensive and are based solely on age. Continue reading for the guidelines:

• Under 1 year – Children should always be in a rear-facing seat
• 1-3 years of age – Kids should stay in a rear-facing seat up until they’ve reached the seat’s maximum weight and height. Once this point is reached, they should be placed in a forward-facing seat with a five-point harness
• 4-7 years of age – Children should stay in a seat with a five-point harness for as long as possible until they reach the maximum weight and height limitations after which they should be placed in a belt-positioning booster seat
• 8-12 years of age – Kids should stay in the booster seat until they’re big enough (4’9”) for a seat belt to properly fit. A properly fitting seat belt should lie snugly across your child’s upper thighs, not their stomach. It will also lie snug across the shoulder and chest, not the neck and face.
• Up to 13 years of age – AAP and the NHTSA recommend all kids ride in the back seat until they are 13 years old.

While many parents believe following their state’s regulations on child seats is enough, it’s best to do your own research.

Don’t take risks with you kids and a car accident. Anything can happen in the flash of a second.

Original story published in the Fall 2011 issue of the Safety Report

In this most recent decision, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dealt with application of  Geier in relation to another more recent U. S. Supreme Court decision, Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. et al, 131 S.Ct. 1131, 179 L.Ed.2d 75 (2011).  In Williamson, the U. S. Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether permimtting a state court suit attacking the manufacturer’s choice of using only a lap belt to continue would constitute a denial of a manufacturer’s ability to choose which seat belt system to use in its automobile design, or whether the issuance of federal motor vehicle safety regulations giving manufacturers the choice preempted state court lawsuits challenging the design of seat belt systems in its vehicles.  On its face, the issue in Williamson appeared to be the same as in Geier, and therefore the Lake case as well.

The U. S. Supreme Court in Williamson tangled with the issue of preemption.  In particular, the Court noted that the regulations at issue contained one clause expressly preempting certain lawsuits, another clause expressly allowing certain lawsuits to be brought (called a “savings clause”), and then addressed the issue of whether or not the state court lawsuit in question constituted a suit in conflict with the safety regulation, noting that longstanding federal decisions held that when a state court lawsuit conflicts with the objective of federal regulations, the regulations preempt the state court lawsuit, meaning the state court lawsuits could not be brought and must be dismissed.    After stating the general principle of Geier that state court lawsuits attacking seat belt design restricted the choice given to manufacturers in federal safety regulations, and were therefore preepmpted, the Court in Williamson found circumstances that led it to conclude that the legal issue in play in Williamson did not represent an issue dealing with a significant objective of the federal safety regulation, and therefore, even though the state court lawsuit conflicted with federal safety regulations, the state court suit at issue in Williamson was not preempted.

Why the difference?  Between the time of the Geier case and the Williamson case, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration changed its rules concerning manufacturer choice of set belts in passenger vehicles, specifically minivans.  The U. S. Supreme Court in Williamson specifically analyzed not only the language of the two regulations, but looked into the intent and purpose for the change.  The Court found that the original regulation in Geier represented a balance between safety but also consumer acceptance.  At the time of issuance, mandating shoulder harness belts was not yet the norm in the U.S.  By the time of Williamson, shoulder harness belts were commonplace, and the new regulations were speficially drafted to address safety concerns alone, not consumer acceptance.  The Court found that the DOT was much less concerned with practical issues of whether shoulder belt harnesses were cumbersome or restrictive, and was instead focused squarely on pure concerns of increased safety.  Indeed, the Court noted that the DOT itself did not believe that state court suits conflicted with seat belt regulations, since it considered the federal regulations to be minimum standards, meaning that state court lawsuits on seat belt design did not conflict with DOT regulations, since any effort to increase safety in use of seatbelts only enhanced the purpose of the regulations.  In short, the regulation at issue in Williamson did not consider manufacturer choice to be of concern – only safety, and since the state court lawsuit was also concerned with safety, it did not conflict with federal safety regulations and was therefore permitted to exist.

Taking all of this in perspective, Tennessee Courts have again demonstrated their willingness to chart their own path, regardless of what the U. S. Supreme Court says.  Writing for the unanimous majority, Judge Steve Stafford opined that the Williamson case provided no justification to conclude that plaintiffs’ case in Lake should be permitted, since under Geier, the Court reasoned it should be preempted.  The Lake case involved a man who was injured when the commercial shuttle bus he was riding in was involved in a collision in Memphis.  The bus in question had large tempered glass windows, “perimeter seating” where all seats faced toward the middle of the vehicle, and no seat belts.  This type of vehicle is commonly used for transportation between airports and rental car facilities, and some courtesy shuttles.  The plaintiff in Lake was ejected from the vehicle during the collision, resulting in a serious brain injury.  The lawsuit filed against various defendants charged that the shuttle was defective in design because it did not contain seatbelts, that perimeter seating was inferor, and that the use of tempered glass was inappropriate.  At trial, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding more than $8 million in damages, but placed all fault for the collision on the driver of a concrete truck, who had caused the collision to occur.  Plaintiffs filed a motion for new trial, and the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Western Section, ruled that a new trial was not warranted on the defective product theories about seat layout, use of tempered glass, and lack of seatbelts, because cases like Geier held that state law personal injury cases involving seat belt claims were preempted.  In the meantime, the U. S. Supreme Court decided Williamson, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, asking the Tennessee Supreme Court to review the case in light of Williamson.  Instead, the Tennessee Supreme Court instructed the Western Section Court of Appeals to address the case in light of Williamson. After analyzing Williamson and Geier, the Western Section concluded that Williamson was a very narrow decision, concluding that Geier represented the general rule of law.  In particular, the Western Section determined that the lesson of Geier and Williamson was that in seat belt cases, the fact that regulations gave manufacturers a choice of which seat belt system to use was not determinative of whether or not a state law case could be maintained.  Instead, the Western Section found that the issue of manufacturer choice must be made in furtherance of a “specific regulatory objective” in order for state law tort claim to be preempted.  In this way, the Western Section appeared to adopt the framework of Williamson.  The Western Section also took from Williamson that the proper analysis requires that the Court look to the purpose and intent of the regulations to determine what the significant objectives of the regulations were, for purposes of determining whether a state court suit was preempted.   On the tempered glass claim, the Western Section found that plaintiffs’ claims did conflict with federal regulations, since built into the regulations on glass was a choice given to manufacturers.  The Western Section snapped back into a Geier analysis, reasoning that Williamson never supplanted Geier, it just distinguished it based on the facts of the Williamson case alone.  Similarly, the Western Section employed the same approach on plaintiffs’ seat belt and seating claims.  Overall, the Western Section took the perspective that it’s pre-Williamson ruling was sound, and need not be altered, since Williamson was a narrow, fact-driven decision that did not change the inherent rule of law espoused in Geier.

Based on the Lake decision from the Western Section Court of Appeals, Tennessee law follows Geier when facing state law claims involving seat belt and restraint system failures.  Presumably, Tennessee jurisprudence would apply equally to any state law personal injury claim asserting a defect in motor vehicle safety.  It remains to be seen if the Tennessee Supreme Court will take up Lake and further reflect on this analysis.