Defective
Crashworthiness Automobile Product
Lawsuits, Fatal Defective Airbag
Lawsuits, Deadly Defective Seatbelt
Lawsuits, Defective Automobile Roof
Design Lawsuits, and Fatal Automobile
Accident Rollover Lawsuits
by Defective Automobile 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. |