DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, Petitioner - Supreme Court ...

Although each plaintiff is basically alleging, “nothing ever happened to me,” each
demands a substantial, immediate monetary payment.
Plaintiffs seek to mask this flaw in their claims by speculating that something bad
might happen in the future. Plaintiffs allege that ifacertain set of circumstances were to
converge, there is a risk that because of its characteristics, their Gen-3 seatbelt buckles
might accidentally release and cause injury and damage to themselves or others. Further,
they allege that ifthey decide to sell their vehicle in the future, they may receive less than
some amount to which they apparently believe they are entitled. See id. On the basis of
this risk of potential future events, plaintiffs demand that they be paid money now.
Texas and other courts do not permit such speculative damage claims to proceed
as class actions. There are sound policy reasons for this rule. To start, courts reject “no
injury” lawsuits because recognizing such suits would harm both consumers and
manufacturers. In denying the validity of “no injury” claims similar to those that
plaintiffs assert here, the Seventh Circuit explained that because the tort system fully
compensates those who are injured by a defective motor vehicle, allowing “no injury”
recoveries would result in both a windfall for plaintiffs whose vehicles never cause them
injury and a distortion of the economic incentives on manufacturers.
See In re
Bridgestoize/Firestone, Inc. Tires Prods. Lid. Litig., 288 F.3d 1012, 1017 & n.1 (7th Cir.
2002). Recognition of claims absent any manifest injury only drives up prices for all
consumers.
Judge John Minor Wisdom of the Fifth Circuit also discussed this point in Willett
v. Bnxter International, he., 929 F.2d 1094 (5th Cir. 1991).
In that case, plaintiffs
7