Fatal Defective Airbag
Lawsuits, Deadly Defective Airbag Lawsuits, Texas Failure to
Deploy Defective Airbag Lawsuits, Defective Airbag Deployment
Lawsuits, Deadly One Car Accident Lawsuits, and Fatal Car Crash
Lawsuits
by Defective Airbag Crashworthiness
Product Liability Lawyer Jason S. Coomer
Defective
automobile product liability lawsuits include defective
accelerator lawsuits, defective floor mat lawsuits, defective
air bag lawsuits, defective seat belt lawsuits, defective brake
lawsuits, defective tire tread lawsuits, defective roof safety
design lawsuits, and defective rollover design lawsuits. A
subset of the defective automobile accident lawsuits are
catastrophic injury and fatal crashworthiness accident
lawsuits. These lawsuits include defective vehicles with
defective airbags, defective seatbelts, defective rollover
design, defective roof design, defective steering column design,
defective child restrain design, and other other defective
safety designs that kill or increase the injuries suffered by
people in the defective vehicle.
If you have lost
a loved one in a fatal automobile collision or have been injured
by a defective automobile including defective brakes, defective
roof design, defective accelerator, defective rollover design,
defective tires, or other defective crashworthiness features,
feel free to
submit
an inquiry or
send an e-mail to Texas defective crashworthiness accident
lawyer Jason Coomer.
Automobile Accident Defective
Crashworthiness Product Liability Lawsuits and The
Crashworthiness Doctrine under Texas Law and Federal Law
Defective Automobile Accident Lawsuit
Crashworthiness cases involve claims that a design defect caused
or enhanced the injuries of a vehicle’s occupants during an
automobile crash. To identify a crashworthiness claim, one must
examine the interplay among the circumstances of the accident,
the performance of the vehicle during the accident, and the
injuries suffered. Such defects may cause a minor injury
automobile collision to become a fatal automobile collision or
cause enhanced injuries by failing to provide suitable
protection from injury or death in foreseeable automobile
accidents. Crashworthiness lawsuits have taken many forms, both
in Texas litigation and throughout state and federal courts.
Under United States Federal the
Crashworthiness Doctrine was developed in the Eighth Circuit’s
opinion in Larsen v. General Motors Corp. that
later helped establish that a manufacturer should be held liable
for failure to provide protection to vehicle occupants in the
event of an automobile collision. The decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Larsen v.
General Motors Corporation, 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968), is
credited with saving many lives and enunciating the legal
doctrine that "[w]hile automobiles are not made for the purpose
of colliding with each other, a frequent and inevitable
contingency of normal automobile use will result in collisions
and injury-producing impacts. No rational basis exists for
limiting recovery to situations where the defect in design or
manufacture was the causative factor of the accident, as the
accident and the resulting injury, usually caused by the
so-called “second collision” of the passenger with the interior
part of the automobile, all are foreseeable. Where the injuries
or enhanced injuries are due to the manufacturer’s failure to
use reasonable care to avoid subjecting the user of its products
to an unreasonable risk of injury, general negligence principles
should be applicable. The sole function of an automobile is not
just to provide a means of transportation, it is to provide a
means of safe transportation or as safe as is reasonably
possible under the present state of the art. Id. at 502".
In Texas, the Crashworthiness Doctrine and
the crashworthiness issue was initially established in Turner
v. General Motors Corp., 514 S.W.2d 497 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The case dealt with
lawsuit in which a motorist sued General Motors and the dealer
for injuries suffered when the automobile's roof collapsed in a
rollover. The Texas court weighed in on the side of the injured
motorist and Larsen holding that “an automobile manufacturer may
be held strictly liable for a defective design which produces
injuries, but not the accident.” Id. at 504. In reaching that
conclusion, the Texas court rejected General Motors’s arguments
that courts lacked the expertise to deal with complex issues of
safety design and that allowing such suits would wreak havoc on
the manufacturers’ ability to do business. Id. at 506. In
General Motors Corp. v. Turner, Texas Supreme Court squarely
rejected this any type of balancing test for crashworthiness
cases, noting that the crashworthiness doctrine was merely a
logical extension of long-articulated principles of Texas
products liability law and that cases asserting the doctrine
were to be charged as any design defect case. More
specifically, the court stated that "there is no valid
distinction in strict liability between a conscious design
defect causing an accident and a conscious design defect causing
an injury. By the same token, there is no rational basis for a
difference in the manner of submission of the issues to be
determined by the fact finder. We have not required a balancing
of enumerated factors in jury submission by our previous
writings, and, as stated earlier, we disapprove the ruling of
the Court of Civil Appeals that such is required in a
crashworthiness case." Turner v. General Motors Corp., 584
S.W.2d 844, 848 (Tex. 1979).
Texas courts have made it clear that under
Texas law and the crashworthiness doctrine “a manufacturer and
retailer may be held strictly liable in tort for a defectively
designed automobile that enhances the injuries of the plaintiff
but does not cause the accident.” Further, the defendant is
liable only for “enhancement damages,” namely, that portion of
the damage or injury caused by the defective design over and
above the damage or injury that probably would have occurred as
a result of the impact or collision absent the defective
design. In Shipp v. General Motors Corp., 750 F.2d 418 (5th
Cir. 1985), a roof crush case, the Fifth Circuit found no Texas
law explicitly answering the question of how the enhanced
damages would have to be determined, but in its examination of
Texas cases the court was convinced that the plaintiff need not
carry such a burden: “We are persuaded that Texas courts would
conclude that it would be illogically harsh to force a plaintiff
to segregate causation in crashworthiness cases, where ‘the
collision, the defect, and the injury are interdependent and . .
. viewed as a combined event.’” Shipp, 750 S.W.2d at 426
(quoting Turner, 584 S.W.2d at 848). According to Shipp, forcing
the plaintiff “to identify in her proof the precise damages she
would have sustained had the product been properly designed,
would shift from proof of a producing cause of injury to sole
producing cause” and would constitute a retreat from the Texas
rule “that a defect need only be a ‘producing cause’ of injury
and that there may be more than one such cause.” Id. at 425.
Thus, according to Shipp, the producing cause issue is not
modified in a crashworthiness case; as in any defect case, the
plaintiff must prove that the alleged defect was a producing
cause of the injuries suffered.
In General Motors Corp. v. Castaneda, 980
S.W.2d 777 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 1998, pet. denied), in an
opinion authored by current Texas Supreme Court Justice Paul
Green, the court approved the holding in Shipp. The court held
General Motors was incorrect in its contention that the
plaintiff was required to quantify with precision the degree of
enhancement. Id. at 780. The court found the plaintiff’s burden
was merely to show the defect was a producing cause the injury
and, “if two or more causes produce a single injury, the jury
may attribute the injury to any or all of the causes. . . . The
burden lies with the defendants to allocate their respective
responsibilities.” Id. at 781 (cites omitted). Even if it were
not necessary to prove a defect enhanced an injury, it is
advisable to attempt to show enhanced damages. At least one
court has held that proving a defect enhanced an injury is proof
the defect is one of the producing causes of injury. Coleman, 40
S.W.3d at 550.
Automobile Accident Crashworthiness
Safety Belt Lawsuits, Automobile Crash Rollover Crashworthiness
Lawsuits, Automobile Wreck Crashworthiness Unsafe Roof Collapse
Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile Collision Crashworthiness
Defective Air Bag Lawsuits (Automobile Defective
Crashworthiness Product Liability Lawsuits)
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards set
minimum performance requirements for those vehicle parts that
protect drivers and passengers from death or serious injury in
the event of a crash (air bags, safety belts, child restraints,
energy absorbing steering columns, motorcycle helmets). These
vehicle performance requirements, defective automobile
crashworthiness lawsuits, manufacturer safety policies, and the
investigation efforts of the The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are important
to identify unsafe vehicles with defective airbags, defective
seat belts, defective child restraints, defective roof design,
defective designs that cause vehicle fires, and defective
designs that cause vehicle rollovers.
Automobile Accident
Crashworthiness Defective Air Bag Lawsuits and Fatal Automobile
Collision Crashworthiness Defective Air Bag Lawsuits (Automobile
Defective Airbag Product Liability Lawsuits)
Defective Air Bag Claims may arise out of
serious automobile accidents where a defective air bag was the
cause of death or a catastrophic injury. An air bag injury may
result when an air bag deploys at low impact or no impact. The
defective airbag will deploy at tremendous force which is
necessary to protect passengers from forward momentum of a
high-speed crash. However, if the air bag deploys At low speed,
deployment can snap the head and neck back severely, resulting
in spinal damage, brain injury and soft tissue damage. Facial
lacerations and even broken bones in the face are also common.
Sometimes air bags fail to deploy when they should, resulting in
chest, head, face and or neck injury as the body is propelled
against the dashboard, windshield or seatback.
The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducts investigation
and research on a variety of crashworthiness issues including
potentially defective airbags,
defective seatbelts, defective rollover design, defective roof
design, defective steering column design, defective child
restrain design, and other other defective safety designs that
can kill or increase the injuries suffered by people in
vehicles. This work combined with fatal collision defective
automobile parts lawyers and catastrophic injury automobile
crash defective part lawyers helps provide important incentives
to automobile manufacturers and automobile parts manufacturers
to ensure production of safe vehicles.
Fatal Rollover Crash
Defective Design Lawsuits, Catastrophic Injury Defective Design
Rollover Lawsuits, Fatal Roof Collapse Defective Design
Lawsuits, Catastrophic Injury Defective Roof Design Lawsuits,
and Automobile Accident Collapsed Roof Lawsuits (Product
Liability Defective Design Roof Collapse Lawsuits)
Manufacturers have known for decades that
vehicles roll over in reasonably foreseeable accidents. With the
rise in popularity of SUVs and pick-up trucks, the number of
people who are susceptible to vehicles rolling over has
increased significantly over the last 20 years. However, in
light of the fact that more people are affected by rollovers,
most vehicle manufacturers have not increased the strength of
the roofs in their SUVs and pick-ups.
Roof crush, or “loss of occupant survival
space,” creates many problems for occupants in the vehicle.
First, it rapidly reduces the space in the vehicle for the
occupant. This will increase the risk that the occupant will
receive a spinal cord compression injury. Second, roof
deformation does not happen straight down but rather down and in
toward the occupant. This significantly increases the likelihood
that a properly belted occupant will be partially ejected out of
the vehicle during the roll sequence. Typically the force of the
roll coupled with the glass shattering out of the window, the
roof crushing down and inward and the seatbelt not properly
securing the occupant to the seat will result in the occupant
having his or her head and/or arm and shoulder out of the
vehicle during the roll. As will be discussed below, there are
other ways to keep an occupant in the vehicle during a roll but
a roof that stays in place during a roll reduces the risk of a
person being partially ejected or receiving a compression injury
even without the other safety measures.
The most common injuries associated with roof
crush are spinal cord compression injuries and death. Many
automobile manufacturers have taken the position, especially in
spinal cord compression injury cases, that the injury was caused
by the occupant “diving” into the roof. The term “diving” comes
from the analogy of swimming pool diving injuries to compression
injuries sustained in rollovers. With this defense, the
automobile manufacturers maintain the injury occurs before the
roof crushes in by the head moving toward the roof until it can
go no further and the weight of the occupant’s body moving
toward the head until there is such loading on the neck that a
spinal injury occurs. Vehicle manufactures allege through
testing and expert testimony that when a vehicle is inverted,
the forces of gravity and the roll sequence will lead to an
occupants head contacting the roof without any roof crush. They
allege that there is no alternative roof design that can stop
this from happening.
Partial ejections are also common in rollover
accidents because the roof crushes down and in toward the
occupant. When the roof crushes down and in, the force of the
roll causes the occupant’s head to get outside the plane of the
vehicle. In a partial ejection, it is common for an occupant to
hit his or her head against the ground or pavement or get it
caught between the car and ground during the roll. Vehicle
manufacturers often argue that no matter the strength of the
roof, a belted occupant can get their head out of the car during
a roll. But if you keep the roof from deforming more than 3
inches during a rollover, restrained and contained occupants
cannot get their heads out of the plane of the vehicle and
sustain a catastrophic injury. The most important series of
tests that address the causal relationship between occupant
injuries and roof deformation are Malibu I and Malibu II. These
were dolly rollover tests performed with Chevrolet Malibus (some
with production roofs and others with reinforced roofs that did
not deform during the rollovers). The vehicles were equipped
with Hybrid III test dummies (in Malibu I the dummies were
unrestrained and in Malibu II the dummies were properly belted).
Vehicle manufacturers use the Malibu tests to argue the roof
crush does not actually cause the injury.
The test data demonstrates, however, that
there is a causative relationship between the strength of the
roof and significant neck loading. Analysis of the Malibu
testing and other testing that has been performed by the
automotive industry and others is beyond the scope of this
paper, but it is important for anybody handling a roof crush
case to be well-versed in all of this testing. When analyzing a
roof crush case, it is important to analyze the extent of the
roof deformation. This will require measurements that can be
done by a trained attorney or investigator. Further, as
discussed above, the accident reconstruction will provide much
information that will allow an analysis of a roof crush case.
Trip speed, roll velocity, number of rolls, drop height and the
type of roll (barrel, end over end or football) are all needed
to analyze whether or not a safer alternative design existed
that would have kept the occupant compartment space preserved
during the roll.
Fatal Crash Defective
Seat Belt Lawsuits, Catastrophic Injury Defective
Crashworthiness Seat Belt Lawsuits, and Car Wreck Defective Seat
Belt Lawsuits (Product Liability Defective Seat Belt Lawsuits)
Serious abdominal, head, neck, shoulder, facial
and leg injuries are common results of seatbelt failure. The
cause may be poor design of the seat latch, failure of the belt
to catch when brakes are applied, poorly designed pressure
points where the lap or shoulder harness cut into the body, or
weakness or tears in the seat belt itself.
The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration Conducts Investigations of
Defective Automobiles with Defective Airbags, Defective Tires,
Defective Roof Design, Defective Accelerators, and Defective
Brakes (NHTSA Automobile Defective Product Recalls)
"Approximately 42,000 lives are lost annually
on our Nation’s highways. Traffic crashes are the primary cause
of debilitating injuries in the United States and the number one
killer of Americans under the age of 34. In addition to
staggering emotional costs, the annual economic loss to society
because of these crashes, in terms of worker productivity,
medical costs, insurance costs, etc., is estimated at more than
$150 billion. Clearly, there is a need for dramatic improvement
in motor vehicle safety. Getting unsafe vehicles off the road is
integral to improving safety and saving lives."
"The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle
Safety Act (originally enacted in 1966 and now recodified as 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301) gives the Department of Transportation’s
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) the
authority to issue vehicle safety standards and to require
manufacturers to recall vehicles that have safety-related
defects or do not meet Federal safety standards. Since then,
more than 390 million cars, trucks, buses, recreational
vehicles, motorcycles, and mopeds, as well as 46 million tires,
66 million pieces of motor vehicle equipment, and 42 million
child safety seats have been recalled to correct safety
defects."
"Manufacturers voluntarily initiate many of
these recalls, while others are either influenced by NHTSA
investigations or ordered by NHTSA via the courts. If a safety
defect is discovered, the manufacturer must notify NHTSA, as
well as vehicle or equipment owners, dealers, and distributors.
The manufacturer is then required to remedy the problem at no
charge to the owner. NHTSA is responsible for monitoring the
manufacturer’s corrective action to ensure successful completion
of the recall campaign."
The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration conducts defect investigations and
administers safety recalls to support its mission to improve
safety on our nation's highways. NHTSA is authorized to order
manufacturers to recall and repair vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment when investigations indicate they contain
serious safety defects in their design, construction, or
performance. NHTSA also monitors the adequacy of manufacturers'
recall campaigns. Before initiating an investigation, NHTSA
carefully reviews the body of consumer complaints and other
available data to determine whether a defect trend may exist.
Defective Accelerators,
Defective Brakes, and Defective Floor Mats Cause Accidents (Product
Liability Lawsuits)
The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration
has announced it is opening a formal investigation of the Toyota
Prius Hybrid model year 2010 to look into allegations of
momentary loss of braking capability while traveling over an
uneven road surface, pothole or bump. The agency received 124
reports from consumers, including four alleging that crashes
occurred. Investigators have spoken with consumers and conducted
pre-investigatory field work. “Safety is our top priority,” said
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA)
has also issued a consumer advisory on the recall of several
models of Toyota vehicles and the Pontiac Vibe involving pedal
entrapment and sticky accelerator pedals. In issuing this
advisory, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) has confirmed 102 known incidents of
2004-2009 model year vehicles where the vehicles' accelerator
and/or defective floor mats caused problems with the operation
of the vehicle. A notice was posted on Toyota and Lexus’ web
sites explaining to Toyota and Lexus owners that, “Recent events
have prompted Toyota (and Lexus) to take a closer look at the
potential for an accelerator pedal to get stuck in the full open
position due to an unsecured or incompatible driver's floor mat.
A stuck open accelerator pedal may result in very high vehicle
speeds and make it difficult to stop the vehicle, which could
cause a crash, serious injury or death.” According to the NHTSA,
42 of the 102 known accidents involved a 2007 Lexus ES350. The
confirmed events included a 4-person fatality crash in Santee,
CA on August 28, 2009, involving a 2009 Lexus ES350 (a Lexus
dealer loaner vehicle).
According to Sean Kane, an
independent automotive safety expert and founder of Safety
Research and Strategies, Inc. says that 19 deaths and 341
injuries can be attributed to 815 separate crashes involving
Toyotas that had accelerated suddenly and unexpectedly. 2,262
incidents involving Unintended Acceleration have been reported
since 1999.
Toyota Motor Corp’s recall of 3.8 million
cars (the largest recall in company history) affects the Toyota
Camry (2000-2010), Toyota Avalon (2005-2010), Toyota Prius
(2004-2009), Toyota Tacoma (2005-2010), Toyota Tundra
(2007-2010), Lexus ES 350 (2007-2010), Lexus
IS 250 (2006-2010),
and the Lexus IS 350 (2006-2010). A recall was issued in 2007
for an all-weather accessory floor mat sold for some 2007 and
2008 Lexus ES 350 and Toyota Camry models.
Secretary Ray LaHood of the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration made the following statement on
the Toyota recalls: “I want to encourage owners of any recalled
Toyota models to contact their local dealer and get their
vehicles fixed as soon as possible. NHTSA will continue to hold
Toyota’s feet to the fire to make sure that they are doing
everything they have promised to make their vehicles safe. We
will continue to investigate all possible causes of these safety
issues.” Read NHTSA’s consumer advisory on the Toyota recalls
from Monday below.
Owners of the recalled Toyota and Lexus
vehicles should are advised to contact their Toyota and Lexus
dealers as soon as possible for a safe replacement.
United States and Texas Catastrophic
Injury and Fatal Shuttle and Bus Accident Lawyers for Bus
Accident Lawsuits
As a Texas Defective
Automobile Crashworthiness Fatal Accident Lawyer, Jason Coomer,
works on Texas Fatal Rollover and Defective Airbag Lawsuits
involving serious injuries and fatal automobile collisions all
over the State of Texas and throughout the United States. In
working on Texas Fatal Automobile Crash Law Suits, Jason Coomer
commonly works with other Texas Fatal Defective Crashworthiness
Rollover Accident Lawyers throughout Texas and the United States
including Houston Fatal Defective Airbag Accident Lawyers,
Dallas Fatal Defective Roof Collapse Rollover Lawyers, El Paso
Defective Safety Restrain Fatal Accident Lawyers, and San
Antonio Defective Safety Design Serious Burn and Death Accident
Lawyers.
In working with other
Defective Crashworthiness Automobile Accident Lawyers, he is
able to more efficiently investigate and litigate catastrophic
injury and fatal automobile crash and deadly car wreck lawsuits
that are caused by defective automobile design or parts.
Texas Defective Crashworthiness Automobile
lawyer, Jason S. Coomer, helps individuals that have been
seriously injured and the families of people that have been
killed as a result of defective air bags, defective rollover
design, defective roof design, defective safety restraint
design, defective steering column design, or other a defective
crashworthiness automobile design or part. If you have a
question about a defective air bag or defective automobile
claims,
contact Austin Texas Defective Automobile Crashworthiness Fatal
Accident lawyer Jason Coomer. |