ALBANY, N.Y. The state Court of Appeals here has stung the motorcoach industry with a ruling in a 17-year-old lawsuit that could put at risk operators using buses that are not equipped with seatbelts.

The decision by the states highest court reinstated a jury verdict that supported claims by three people who were injured in an accident while riding in a bus that did not have passenger restraints.

They claimed the carrier and others associated with the company were financially responsible for their injuries because they failed to put restraints on the bus.

Attorneys for the carrier had argued that the assertion made by the defendants was preempted by federal regulations, which do not require carriers to install passenger restraints on their coaches.

The United Motorcoach Association and others in the industry had warned that a ruling against the operator could carry industrywide implications, possibly even opening the door for victims of other motorcoach accidents to sue operators for failing to have passenger seatbelts on their buses. (See Oct. 1 Bus & Motorcoach News.)

"We will have to see how the courts decision affects the industry, particularly New York operators," said Ken Presley, UMA vice president and chief operating officer.

He suggested UMA does not believe the court pursued a "holistic view" of federal policy regarding seatbelts in buses and consideration should be given to possible further court action.

"While we do not control the defendants next step, I am inclined to believe the latest decision deserves review," he said.

Lawyers for the defendants said they were reviewing their options.

The Appeals Court did reject a second argument by the accident victims that suggested the carrier made the bus more dangerous by making modifications to it. That rejection resulted in part of the case being sent back to the lower court to decide other issues related to the modifications.

The seatbelt decision drew a dissenting opinion from one of the three judges on the panel.

Judge Eugene F. Pigott said federal regulators have made a distinction in their rules between the need for smaller buses to have seatbelts and larger buses, such as the one involved in the accident, need not have them.

"In holding that plaintiffs claim is not preempted, this court has, in essence, required that motor carriers of large buses must comply with small bus regulations," he wrote in his six-page dissent. "I dont find that to be Congresss intent."

The case dates back to 1994 when a Best Transit Corp. bus drifted off the road and rolled over several times in the median. Three of the 19 passengers who were injured sued Best, Warrick Industries and Goshen Bus, claiming the bus was dangerous because it did not contain seatbelts.

The suit, which was stalled in court for several years because the carrier filed for bankruptcy and its insurance company was placed in receivership, went to trial in 2006 and the jury ruled in favor of the passengers. It awarded them damages of $26.5 million, but the amount later was reduced by the court to $10.5 million.

Three years later the jury verdict was overturned by the State Supreme Court, which ruled that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations do not require the bus to have seatbelts. The accident victims then took the case to the Appeals Court.