DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. Bill Inman, David Castro, and John Wilkins, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue claims concerning allegedly defective Gen-3 seatbelt buckles because their alleged injuries were hypothetical and insufficiently concrete. The Court reversed the court of appeals and dismissed the putative nationwide class action for want of jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The named plaintiffs lacked standing because they had not shown a concrete, particularized, actual, or imminent injury; the alleged possibility of accidental seatbelt-buckle release was too remote and hypothetical.
2. When the named plaintiffs in a putative class action lack standing to assert their own individual claims, the entire action must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the named plaintiffs had standing to assert claims based on the alleged possibility that their seatbelt buckles might accidentally unlatch and cause future injury.
2. Whether the absence of standing required dismissal of the entire putative class action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

reversed