Preserve Clients’ Automobile Defect Claims
By James A. Wells
James A. Wells is an associate with Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg & Jeck, P.C. in Philadelphia, where he handles complex personal injury matters with an emphasis on products liability claims. He can be reached at jim@erlegal.com.
Six months ago, you handled one of the most significant cases of your career. Your client’s wife was killed in an auto accident and you skillfully negotiated a prompt settlement for the limits of the other driver’s liability policy. Today, a lawyer representing your client in a claim against the manufacturer of the wife’s vehicle asked if you investigated a possible products liability claim and whether you preserved such a claim when you advised your client to sign the release. Tomorrow, you will call your professional malpractice carrier.
There are many instances where a client or a client’s family member is killed or catastrophically injured, and counsel mistakenly assumes that the damages recoverable are limited to the terms of any applicable liability insurance policy. To adequately represent such a client and maximize the damages recoverable, it is critical that personal injury lawyers recognize potential claims against automobile manufacturers for vehicle defects and preserve any such claims at the inception of the case.
Automobile defect claims are typically pursued under the “crashworthiness doctrine,” which is a subset of a products liability action. The doctrine provides that a manufacturer or seller of an automobile is liable even when the defect did not cause the accident or initial impact but increased the severity of injuries beyond those that would have occurred absent the design defect. Thus, because the vehicle was defectively designed, a person’s injuries have been aggravated unnecessarily. Auto manufacturers must therefore anticipate that their vehicles will be involved in accidents and incorporate reasonable safety features available when a vehicle is designed.
Vehicle defects should be considered in any auto accident resulting in death or catastrophic injury; the most common types are:
• Rollovers: SUVs have a greater tendency to roll over during foreseeable driving maneuvers because SUVs are designed with a shorter wheelbase and a higher center of gravity.
• Roof crush: Many SUVs are designed with a weak roof structure causing passenger death or severe head and neck injury that could have been prevented with a sufficiently stronger roof.
• Seatbelt failures: Often, passengers are mistakenly determined not to have been wearing a seatbelt when in fact the seatbelt failed mechanically. There also are instances of defective seatbelt system design, resulting in a passenger’s total or partial ejection in what would otherwise have been a survivable crash.
• Fuel-fed fires: A collision resulting in a fuel leak increases the likelihood of a fire. Defects are often caused by the fuel tank being too close to another part that can puncture the tank, or by tanks that are improperly protected or made with defective welds.
• Tire failures: Technically, such claims do not involve the crashworthiness doctrine but are instead standard products liability claims. Rather than merely aggravating an occupant’s injuries, tread separation can result in a loss of control and cause an accident.
• Seat back failures: A seat that is poorly designed or fails mechanically can collapse, causing an occupant to “ramp” rearward toward an ejection portal, such as a broken window or an open door.
• Airbag failures: Some passengers are injured unnecessarily when an airbag fails mechanically by deploying at an improper speed or angle.
• Door latch failures: A fundamental concept in vehicle latch design is that the latch stay closed in a foreseeable car accident. Latch failure increases the likelihood of occupant ejection.
• Child seat defects: Poorly designed or manufactured child seats can cause serious injury or death to children. The most common child seat defects are defective belts and latches and flammable materials. While such seats technically are not considered part of a car, frequently manufacturers are held liable under the same engineering analysis used for other car components.
To preserve possible vehicle defect claims certain steps are critical:
• Safely store and protect the vehicle to prevent any change in its condition.
• Photograph the vehicle’s exterior and interior extensively.
• Any release the client signs should release the initial tortfeasor only and specifically preserve any claims against manufacturers—of the vehicle and of any component part of the vehicle.
Vehicle defect cases involve voluminous and highly technical discovery as well as expert testimony in areas such as accident reconstruction, biomechanical kinematics, and mechanical engineering. Because of their complexity, vehicle defect claims should be investigated by a lawyer who specializes in this area. Handling such claims in a careful, competent manner serves your client by maximizing recovery, and avoids a
possible legal malpractice claim.
FOR MORE INFO
Visit the Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section at www.abanet.org/tips for substantive committees on automobile law and commercial transportation, and to plan to attend its 8th Transportation MegaConference in March 2007.
READY RESOURCES
• Truck Accident Litigation, Second Edition. 2006. PC #5190398. Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section.
• How to Build and Manage
a Personal Injury Practice, Second Edition. 2006. PC #5110575. Law Practice Management Section.
Section members receive a discounted price. To order online, visit www.ababooks.org.
Back to Top