< Library - Consumer Rights                                                      
Consumer Protection

LAWSUITS PROMOTE SAFETY IN CARS & OTHER PRODUCTS

     Defects in cars and other products make them unsafe for consumers and their families. If the product defects cause injuries, the law provides the injured with a right to recover compensation against the manufacturer or seller.

     Litigation brings into light the facts that show why these products are unsafe. Evidence is brought to show how they hurt people. When these companies are proven to harm consumers, they become liable to pay damages for the injuries they caused, including the costs of present and future medical care, loss of earnings, and damages for pain and suffering.

     Insurance companies and politicians supported by these companies unfairly criticize these lawsuits as lottery. Lawyers are often blamed. They say these product liability cases are bad for the economy. Nothing is farther from the truth.

     The legal remedies protect the lowly consumer against big companies who put profits over the public good. The factual history of the American civil justice system shows how the courage of these consumers and their attorneys who waged these legal fights had advanced the cause of product safety.

     For example, lawsuits have influenced changes in the way cars were designed and produced. Consider the following cases compiled by the American Association for Justice:

     1. TIRES. Tire manufacturers from Firestone to Goodyear tried to cover up problems with defective tires and have been held accountable in civil courts. Firestone’s defective tires caused 271 deaths, and the resulting litigation brought tires and their manufacturers under increased scrutiny.

     2. GAS TANKS. Several car manufacturers, including GM and Ford, designed defective gas tank placement, which resulted in fires and explosions even in minor collisions. As a result of litigation, gas tanks are now universally located within rigid frames.

     3. DOOR LATCHES. Ford’s own engineers identified the problem with its “paddle-style” handles, which allowed the doors to accidentally open in collisions. But rather than fix the design, Ford covered up the problem through red tape, until held accountable in court.

     4. AIR BAGS. Auto manufacturers have been developing air bag technology since the 1950s, yet were extremely slow in installing it. By 1988, only two percent of new cars came equipped with air bags. Courts found that manufacturers knew full well their cars were safer with airbags and that many lives could have been saved. Eventually, manufacturers were forced to install air bags in all cars.

     5. ILLUSORY PARK. Ford and Chrysler were two manufacturers that experienced systemic problems with transmissions that slipped out of park and allowed their “parked” cars to roll away. In one instance, a pregnant woman was killed after trying to save her four-year-old daughter in a parked minivan that rolled away. Ford eliminated the problem after being held responsible twice in court. Chrysler ignored the problem against its own engineers’ recommendations, until finally litigation and regulatory investigations forced them to recall over a million affected vehicles.

     6. SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION. When a police officer was left paralyzed by a low-speed, side-impact collision, a court held that the absence of side protection was a design defect. Now all cars are designed with rigid side-impact protection.

     7. ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL. The popularity of SUVs eventually brought to light the stability problems of certain models. Ford’s Explorer, built on the already troubled Bronco II frame, experienced a rollover rate more than twice that of other SUVs. One result of litigation on SUV rollovers was an increased emphasis on the development of electronic stability control.

     8. SEATS. Safety engineers call the prevalence of weakened seats the “most egregious, widespread defect to be found.” Weak seats can collapse in even low-speed impacts and kill rear passengers. Without adequate regulatory standards, only court cases were able to highlight manufacturers’ negligence and force them to install stronger seats in all cars instead of just certain models.

     9. SEAT BELTS. Court cases went a long way in highlighting the dangers of inferior seat belts, or no seat belts at all. One example was Chrysler’s defective Gen 3 seatbelt, installed in more than 14 million cars and proven to unlatch in accidents. Both seat belts and seats themselves were redesigned in response to litigation.

     10. POWER WINDOWS. As power windows became more common, so did deaths associated with them. Children were especially vulnerable through accidental depression of rocker-style window switches. The inexpensive solution, a lift-up style switch, was ignored by several manufacturers in order to cut costs, but litigation eventually forced universal acceptance of the safer switches.

     11. ROOF CRUSH. Vehicle manufacturers, particularly makers of SUVs, had long known roof strength was a critical weakness during rollovers. Without adequate regulatory standards, it was only litigation that forced manufacturers to begin strengthening roofs.

     Despite the fact that several lawsuits had been filed against car manufacturers and despite the number of huge verdicts and settlements, these defective cars continue to be built and sold to the public. Toyota’s sudden acceleration and brake problems, for instance, have been reported to have caused about 50 deaths and the recall of more than 8 million defective cars. These issues remain the subject of extensive investigation by both the government and private attorneys who are prosecuting these cases.

     The defects are not limited to automobiles. Drugs may result in harmful side effects. Toys may injure helpless kids. Contaminated food may cause serious illnesses. Consumers and their attorneys seeking justice continue to challenge these defects and fight product liability lawsuits.

     A resort to the civil court system will bring the issue of consumer product safety to the fore. Hopefully, the results of these cases will result in additional safety changes to manufacturers’ practices. With these changes accomplished through litigation, we avoid unnecessary injuries to consumers.
 

© Law Offices C. Joe Sayas, Jr.