|
|
_______________________________________________________________
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.
|
|
