Is a third amended complaint alleging a shoulder belt failure covered by FMVSS 208?

Plaintiffs note the third amended complaint alleged other design defect claims not covered by FMVSS 208, including a lap-only belt anchored at an unsafe angle, several seating positions unreasonably susceptible to ramping and submarining of passengers because of [t]he angle, geometry, and composition of the seat bottom, seat backs incapable of sufficiently withstand[ing] foreseeable forces in a frontal collision, and the vehicle's lack of sufficient energy-absorbing materials and structures to absorb reasonable amounts of force from a frontal collision.... In addition, citing the principle that a product flawlessly designed and produced may nevertheless possess such risks to the user without a suitable warning that it becomes defective simply by the absence of a warning ( Cavers v. Cushman Motor Sales, Inc. (1979) 95 Cal.App.3d 338, 347, 157 Cal.Rptr. 142), plaintiffs contend their failure to warn theory is not preempted by FMVSS 208. Thus, they argue, even if this court finds that the lap/shoulder belt theory is preempted, the judgment should still be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings on the other remaining theories of liability.

[167 Cal.App.4th 920]