Crashworthiness

Your Degree of Safety in a Crash

A vehicle should be designed to minimize the risk of injury presented by accidents. Car crashes are common enough that the design and components of a car should take that possibility into account.

An Obligation on the Part of Designers, Manufacturers, and Dealers

Legally, designers and manufacturers are required to include a system that will minimize the injuries that result from a crash. "Crashworthiness" specifically refers to features that reduce the impact of a crash. These include design elements such as airbags, seatbelts, headrests, and rollbars on the roof of the car.

A Designation of Liability

If the devices in your vehicle failed to minimize the injuries you suffered as a result of a car accident, designers, manufacturers, and even car dealers may be held responsible for paying restitution. Our firm can prove when these parties have acted negligently.

Blaming the Other Driver

Some companies may claim that because another driver caused the crash, that driver alone should bear sole responsibility for your injury. They may also insist that the only reason you are trying to sue the company as well as the driver is that the driver's insurance is inadequate. In short, they may try to frame your lawsuit as a desperate grab for more money.

The counterargument to this is fairly simple. Although the other driver may be responsible for the initial accident, your vehicle should still have been designed and built to mitigate the injuries resulting from the first collision and second collision( the impact your body made with the inside of the vehicle or other surfaces after the initial impact). If the vehicle failed to stand up to reasonable use, the automaker should bear at least some responsibility for your injury. 

Blaming the Plaintiff

In some cases, the defense may try to turn the claim around on you. They may argue that your own negligence led to the accident. For example, they could argue that a text message sent close to the time of the accident or a similar distraction is evidence that your attention was not fully on the road and that you are ultimately responsible for the crash.

However, the counterargument remains the same: you were still owed a duty by the designer or manufacturer to minimize your injuries through the inclusion of safety devices. As a result, admitting that you may have been negligent while driving can help your case in certain situations. Doing so not only leaves the defense's argument somewhat flat, but may also allow you to present yourself as more reasonable.

This can be a delicate balance, however. For example, sending a text message while driving is illegal in the state of Texas and could potentially undermine your credibility. Rocky can help you determine the right strategy for your case.

Meeting Industry Standards

The defense can also claim that the car in question was actually crashworthy because it met the industry's standards. In other words, even if a system did not work as intended or was not included in the first place, the company should not be penalized because it's the same as what any other automaker would have done.

However, this argument misrepresents how the auto industry typically works. While many designers and manufacturers may claim that competition is harsh, companies often work collaboratively. Each company is usually aware of what the others are doing in terms of these features. Rather than trying to include more features than a rival, automakers often collectively decide to meet a minimum level of safety in order to maximize profits. 

Meeting Federal Standards

Similar to the industry standards approach, a defendant may argue that because they met federal safety standards for vehicle design and manufacturing, the car was crashworthy. However, like the industry standards argument, this misrepresents the reality of the situation.

While most of us would like to believe that only the strictest standards of safety are put into federal law, the opposite is often true. Federal guidelines do not necessarily result in state-of-the-art safety systems. Many automakers, trade groups, and lobbyists spend millions of dollars each year to influence this process and maximize profits. As a result, vehicles often meet the lowest possible threshold for safety, simply because that threshold is easier and more affordable to meet.

For victims, the best counter-argument is the testimony of an expert witness. They can demonstrate in detail how the regulations do not represent the safest approach, and explain how these regulations were lobbied into existence in the first place.