Auto Defect and Crashworthiness Lawsuits

Many models of car become the subject of crashworthiness litigation after accidents occur in which the occupants suffer preventable injuries. Currently, SUVs, with their tendency to rollover and experience roof crush, are the subject of numerous suits.

In one case, a teenager sustained paralyzing spinal injuries when his Ford Explorer rolled over as he attempted to regain control of the vehicle after it went off the road. The young man, whose lap and shoulder belt failed to protect him in the rollover, sustained a thoracic fracture when his body struck the roof.

Other cases have included passenger cars, including a case in which a women suffered paralysis when the seatbelt in her Geo Prizm failed to distribute the force of a low speed impact evenly between the lap and shoulder belt.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which rates vehicles on safety and crashworthiness has recently given Chrysler's 2001 minivans a "poor" rating for crash worthiness because a fuel leak developed after a crash test. The IIHS also gave the Dodge Ram pickup a "poor" rating in its front-end crash test. The IIHS also gave the Hyundai Elantra small car a "poor" rating because in two out of three tests, the driver's air bag deployed too late.

Litigation

Congress requires vehicle manufacturers to consider at least certain aspects of crashworthiness. Due to the protests of individuals, safety groups, and insurance companies tired of paying costs associated with vehicles' obvious shortcomings, Congress passed the National Traffic and Motor Safety Act of 1966. The Act created the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which sets minimal crashworthiness standards for cars and trucks. These standards, far from exhaustive, serve as a base line for crashworthiness. As a result, nationwide, courts have recognized that vehicle manufacturers must take such steps as may be reasonable and practicable to provide for passenger safety. Today all manufacturers must consider the ability of their vehicles to withstand foreseeable collisions and protect occupants from injury.

Crashworthiness litigation has focused on four basic areas. These areas include:
1) body structure
2) occupant restraints
3) interior padding
4) window protection.

The body of a vehicle must protect occupants and components, like the fuel system, by withstanding and absorbing collisions, such as frontal, rear and side impacts, as well as rollovers. The restraint system in a vehicle should also serve to protect occupants in such accidents. The restraint system should include: proper headrests, backrests, seats and seatbelts, with lap and shoulder belts that fit, lock, and are anchored properly. Interior padding protects occupants from interior surfaces that occupants may collide with in an accident, including the roof and its supporting parts. Finally, manufacturers should glaze or laminate windows, or use plastics in the material to reduce injuries.

To prevail in a strict liability claim against an auto manufacturer or seller of a motor vehicle, where an uncrashworthy aspect of a vehicle caused injury, a plaintiff must establish four elements. The plaintiff must establish that:
1) the vehicle was in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous
2) the defective condition of the vehicle enhanced the injuries the plaintiff suffered in the accident
3) the vehicle was being used in a foreseeable manner at the time the injuries were suffered
4) the vehicle was defective when it left the possession and control of the manufacturer
5) the defendant was engaged in the business of selling or distributing motor vehicles.

In a claim for "enhanced injuries" suffered in a motor vehicle accident, the defective design or condition of the vehicle is not the cause of the original or "first" accident. Instead, the defects caused additional or enhanced injuries to the occupants when they came in contact with the vehicles interior or were ejected from the vehicle. "Enhanced injury" claims rest on the degree to which the defective condition of the vehicle aggravates the plaintiff's injuries beyond those that were caused by the original accident itself.

The term "second collision" is closely related to the concept of enhanced injury. "Second collision" refers to the impact of an occupant of a vehicle with some part of the interior of the vehicle or with some exterior object after being thrown out of the vehicle. The concept of crashworthiness becomes central in an enhanced injury action, since these types of cases consider the relative ability of a motor vehicle to protect its occupants against "second collision" injuries.

The doctrine of crashworthiness imposes liability on a manufacturer not for causing the accident, but for failing to minimize the injuries, or for increasing the severity of the injuries, sustained in an accident brought about by a cause other than the alleged defect. Crashworthiness doctrine extends the scope of liability of a vehicle manufacturer to situations in which construction or design of its product has caused separate or enhanced injuries in the course of an initial accident brought about by an independent cause. The crashworthiness doctrine permits a plaintiff to recover only for "enhanced injuries," which are those injuries he can prove he would not have sustained if he had been riding in a crashworthy vehicle. If enhanced injuries cannot be shown, then the manufacturer has no liability under the crashworthiness doctrine.

Courts developed the crashworthiness doctrine on a theory that a manufacturer should foresee the likelihood that during normal operation an automobile may become involved in a collision. Under the doctrine, a manufacturer must design and manufacture its product so as to eliminate unreasonable risks of foreseeable injury in the event of a collision or other impact.

When compared with a negligence action, a strict liability action under the crashworthiness doctrine has various advantages for the plaintiff. In a negligence case, the plaintiff must establish that the defective design or condition of the motor vehicle resulted from the manufacturer's failure to use care. In a strict liability case if the plaintiff establishes the other required elements proof of a defect alone is sufficient to establish liability. In a strict liability case the court focuses on the design of the vehicle and whether it is defective. In a negligence action, the court inquires as to whether the manufacturer was negligent in designing the vehicle.

Plaintiff's may use a variety of tests to establish whether a vehicle was defective and also whether a defect made a vehicle unreasonably dangerous. One test, known as the consumer expectation test, determines whether a defect makes a vehicle unreasonably dangerous if, as a result of the defect, the vehicle is more dangerous than ordinary person using the vehicle would expect. Another test, called the risk/utility test, test involves weighing the utility of the vehicle's design against the risk of injury created by the design. Under neither of these tests is a manufacturer expected to design a vehicle that is one hundred percent safe.

During the course of a crashworthiness case, the court may require two additional elements: 1) proof of an alternative safer design practicable under the circumstances; and 2) the resulting injuries if the safer design had been used; and, as a corollary of the second element. The law requires a manufacturer to design a product reasonably fit for its intended use.

Under the crashworthiness doctrine, courts may impose liability on manufacturers of motor vehicles and on all persons engaged in the business of selling motor vehicles, including retailers, wholesalers, distributors, importers, and lessors. A plaintiff may collect compensatory damages including medical costs related to the enhanced injury, lost wages, and pain and suffering. In more egregious cases, where, for instance, the manufacturer was aware of the defect but failed to take measures to correct it, a court may award punitive damages.

The law limits the time that a plaintiff may have to make a claim in these cases. If you have sustained injuries you believe result from the failure of a manufacturer to design a crashworthy vehicle, consult a qualified attorney immediately in order to protect your interests.

Submit Your Accident Case to Our Attorneys for a free evaluation.

If you or someone you know, has sustained a serious injury related to an rollover accident you can use this form to contact an attorney who is experienced in the area of personal injury law. Our lawyers represent people throughout the country and foreign nationals injured in the United States.

Auto Defect: Case Submission >>



Find Auto Defect Lawyers | Crashworthiness Basics | Crashworthy Design | SUV Rollovers

Auto Defect Lawsuits | Types of Vehicles | Auto Defect Home Page