This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps sued D over cars that have an automatic, non-motorized, passive, three-point restraint system employing door-mounted restraint retractors. The system is not automatic as advertised. A person must disengage the retractors to enter and exit the vehicle conveniently and efficiently, therefore it is, therefore, neither automatic nor passive. Ps sued Ds for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranties. D got summary judgment, and the court of appeals reversed the breach of warranty claim. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.