Most vehicles are designed with safety in mind and are manufactured carefully to ensure proper function. Some vehicles, however, are designed improperly and/or carelessly manufactured which can lead to serious injury or even death.

"CRASHWORTHINESS"

Crashworthiness is a vital concept in determining whether a potential safety related defect exists in a vehicle. Crashworthiness is the ability of a vehicle to minimize the risk of severe injury or death in the event of a collision. When determining if a vehicle is crashworthy several factors are examined. These factors include the ability of the vehicles crumple zones to maintain adequate survival space for the occupants, the vehicle's ability to restrain and to prevent the ejection of the occupants from the vehicle, the prevention of fire, and controlling the transfer of energy in the event of a collision.

REPONSIBILITY

Depending on the state, the parties that may be held liable for a motor vehicle defect include the vehicle's manufacturer, the manufacturer of the defective component parts, and if the vehicle was purchased from a dealer, the dealer.

A party may be held liable on several grounds including negligence, breach of warranty and strict liability.

In the majority of cases involving defective vehicles, the cause of the accident is irrelevant. Most cases brought on the theory of crashworthiness are controlled by the doctrine of strict liability whereby liability does not depend on actual negligence, carelessness or the intent to cause harm but rather it is based on a breach of an absolute duty of the manufacture to make the vehicle safe. This duty is derived by the manufacturers duty to design a vehicle and its components that are safe for there "reasonably foreseeable" uses. Furthermore, it has been established that it is reasonably foreseeable that a vehicle could be involved in a collision. Therefore, the manufacturer has a duty to design a vehicle and its components that would be reasonably safe should a collision occur.

ESTABLISHING YOUR CLAIM

Since motor vehicle defect claims are controlled by the doctrine of strict liability there is no need to establish actual negligence, carelessness or the intent to cause harm. Here, the injured party must only demonstrate that the vehicle manufacturer breached its duty to make a safe vehicle. In order to establish this breach the following three criterion must be met.

• There was an "unreasonably dangerous" defect in the vehicle or one of its components that led to, or increased the severity, of the injury. (The defect can come into existence during the design, manufacturing, or shipment of the vehicle.)
• The defect caused the injury while the vehicle was being operated for its intended use. A vehicle's intended use extends to a collision. Therefore, the vehicle must be designed with the appropriate safety features in the event of a accident.
• The vehicle has not been substantially altered from the form in which it was originally purchased. Here, "substantially" is defined as a way that effects how the vehicle performs.

BRING A CLAIM

To bring a successful claim based on the theory crashworthiness you will likely need to demonstrate that the component that was responsible for the injury or increased the severity of the injury could have been reasonably substituted. The most effective method to establish this is to demonstrate that an alternative component was available and that such a component could have and should have been used. For example, demonstrating that vehicles of the same model year were using more advanced safety features than the feature that caused the injury would establish that a more advanced component could have been used.

DEFENSES

Despite recent congressional efforts to establish that a vehicle manufacturers compliance with government safety standards would offer a valid defense to a vehicle defect claim, the courts have continued to rule that despite compliance with federal standards the manufacturers have a duty to build a vehicle that is as safe as is reasonable possible given the state of technology at that time of inception. Therefore, the most common method vehicle manufacturers utilize to absolve themselves of all liability is to attempt to establish that a superior component was not available at the time the vehicle was made. More commonly vehicle manufacturers attempt to mitigate damages on vehicle defect claims based on a theory of contributory and/or comparative negligence, meaning that the injured party knew of the defect and continued to operate the vehicle anyway.

DAMAGES

In addition to compensatory damages, which compensate an individual for injuries, courts have recently been awarding punitive damages. In certain instances these awards can range into the millions of dollars. The reasons for awarding punitive damages are two fold, first, to punish the responsible party and, second, to motivate the vehicle manufacturers to design vehicles with safety in mind. Vehicle manufacturers often attempt to maximize profit at the expense of safety.

For Example, the following is an excerpt from an executive at a major auto manufacturer:

"The chairman of the board commented that it would be desirable to reduce cost related to items designed to achieve or exceed compliance with regulatory requirements to as low a level as possible, to maximize our future pricing flexibility vis-a-vis competition."

Additionally, vehicle manufacturers perform what is known as a cost/benefit analysis to determine if it is cheaper to pay a claim or fix the defect.

"Value analysis of auto fuel fed fire related fatalities; each fatality has a value of $200,000."

Here, the manufacturer has calculated how many deaths will occur and is willing to pay $200,000 per death and still make a profit. With punitive damages awarded the manufacture stands to lose millions of dollars per case so they are forced to fix the problem rather then pay for the injuries they caused.