|
Recognizing and Preserving Your Client's Automobile
Auto accident claims or lawsuits usually seek monetary compensation from the other driver's insurance company. Sometimes, if a badly designed automobile feature made the accident worse for the victim, you can also make a claim against the auto manufacturer. The following article appeared in "At Issue, A Publication By and For The Young Lawyers Division of The Pennsylvania Bar Asssocation, and, "The Young Lawyer", Volume II, Number 1, October, 2006. The article regards clients that are killed or catastrophically injured, and tells other lawyers how to adequetely represent the claim. While written to instruct lawyers, the infomrmation below is valuable for anyone who suspects a vehicle defect lead to more serious injury or death of a loved one.
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, you received a call from an attorney representing your client in a claim against the manufacturer of the wife's vehicle. The attorney wanted to know if you investigated a possible products liability claim and whether or not such a claim was preserved when you advised your client to sign the release. Tomorrow, you will place a call to your professional malpractice carrier.
There are many instances where a client or a client's family member is killed or catastrophically injured and it is mistakenly assumed that the damages recoverable are limited to the policy limits of any applicable liability insurance policy. In order to adequately represent such a client and to maximize the damages recoverable, every personal injury attorney should know how to recognize potential claims against automobile manufacturers for vehicle defects. It is critical that efforts be made at the inception of the case to preserve any such claims.
Automobile defect claims are typically pursued under the “crashworthiness doctrine." The crashworthiness doctrine is a subset of a products liability action and provides that a manufacturer or seller of an automobile is liable in “situations in which the defect did not cause the accident or initial impact, but rather increased the severity of the injury over that which would have occurred absent the design defect. II Kupetz v. Deere & Co., 644 A.2d 1213, 1218 (Pa.Super. 1994). The principle behind a crashworthiness claim is that the vehicle's defective design causes a person's injuries to be aggravated unnecessarily. Auto manufacturers must therefore anticipate that their vehicles will be involved in accidents and must incorporate reasonable safety features available when a vehicle is designed.
It is important to recognize when a vehicle defect claim may exist. Although vehicle defects should be considered in any auto accident resulting in death or catastrophic injury, the most common types of defects are as follows:
1. Rollovers - SUVs have a greater tendency to rollover during foreseeable driving maneuvers. This rollover propensity is caused by the fact that SUVs are designed with a shorter wheelbase but a higher center of gravity.<
2. Roof Crush - Despite their increased rollover propensity, many SUVs are designed with a weak roof structure. As a result, many passengers are killed or sustain severe head and neck injuries that could be prevented with a sufficiently strong roof.
3. Seatbelt Failures - It is often mistakenly determined that a person was not wearing a seatbelt when in fact the seatbelt was worn but failed mechanically. There are also instances where the design of the seatbelt system is defective, resulting in a passenger's total or partial ejection in what would have otherwise been a survivable crash.
4. Fuel-Fed Fires - When a collision results in a fuel leak, the likelihood of a fire increases. Defects are often caused by the tank being placed too close to some other part that can puncture the tank or by tanks that are improperly protected or defectively welded.
5.Child Seat Defects ~ Poorly designed or manufactured child seats can cause serious injury or death to children. The most common defects found in child seats are defective belts and latches and the use of flammable materials.
6. Tire Failures - These claims technically do not involve the crashworthiness doctrine but are instead standard products liability claims. Rather than merely aggravating an occupant's injuries, tread separation and the resulting loss of control can be the actual cause of an accident.
7. Seat Back Failures - A seat that is poorly designed or that fails mechanically can collapse, causing an occupant to "ramp" rearward toward an ejection portal, such as a broken window or an open door.
8. Airbag Failures - Some passengers are unnecessarily injured when an airbag mechanically fails by deploying at below-average speed. There are also
instances where an airbag mechanically fails by failing to deploy at the proper speed or angle.
9. Door Latch Failures - A fundamental concept in vehicle latch design is that the latch should stay closed in a foresee- able car accident. Latch failure increases the likelihood of occupant ejection.
It is then critical that certain steps be taken to preserve possible vehicle defect claims. The vehicle itself must be safely stored and protected so as to prevent any change in its condition. The vehicle's exterior and interior should be extensively photographed. Finally, any release signed by the client should release the initial tortfeasor only and should specifically preserve any claims against the vehicle manufacturer and any manufacturer of any component part of the vehicle.
Vehicle defect cases are very complex, involving voluminous and highly technical discovery, as well as expert testimony in areas such as accident reconstruction, biomechanical kinematics and mechanical engineering. For this reason, vehicle defect claims should be investigate by an attorney who specializes in this area. Handling vehicle defect claims in a careful, competent manner will not only avoid the possibility that you will be subjected to a legal malpractice claim, but will also serve your client by maximizing recovery in his or her case. |
