Crashworthiness in Utah
“It is our belief that many plaintiffs’ attorneys frequently overlook crashworthiness theories in their analysis of potential avenues for recovery for seriously injured clients.”
For nearly 30 years, American courts have recognized that vehicle manufacturers must provide a reasonably crashworthy vehicle design to minimize accident injuries to vehicle occupants.
In the seminal case of Larsen v. General Motors Corp, 391 F 2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, in recognizing the crashworthiness doctrine, noted: “We perceive of no sound reason, either in logic or experience, nor any commanding precedent, why the manufacturer should not be held to a reasonable duty of care in the design of its vehicle, consonant with the state of art to minimize the effect of accidents. The manufacturers are not insurers, but should be held to a standard of reasonable care in design to provide a reasonably safe vehicle…At least, the unreasonable risk should be eliminated and reasonable steps in design taken to minimize the injury-producing effects of impact.”
There is not much reported case law in Utah on crashworthiness. However, the doctrine has been recognized, sub judice. See, Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp. 801 P. 2d 920 (Utah 990). There are also a number of Tenth Circuit cases recognizing the crashworthiness principle. See e.g., Harvey v. General Motors Corp. 873 F 2d 1343 (10th Cir 1989), Cleveland v. Piper Aircraft Corp. 890 F 2d 1540 (10th Cir. 1989), and Fox v. Ford Motor Co. 575 F 2d 774 (10th Cir. 1978).
In crashworthiness cases, the focus is on the enhancement of injuries caused by what is often referred to as the “second collision”. This is the collision between the vehicle occupant with interior or exterior of the vehicle which occurs moments after the initial collision or accident. In some cases, crashworthiness theories can be made in cases where a defect also contributed to the cause of the initial accident.
For instance, sport utility vehicles (the most notorious of which is the Jeep CJ7) are often involved in rollover accidents. The cause of the rollover may be attributed to defective design (a high center of gravity combined with a narrow track width while the injuries may be exacerbated by a poorly designed seat belt system permitting ejection, a vehicle interior which is poorly padded and not “crash friendly” or a poor roof design which permits excessive roof crush during the rollover. In some instances, accidents may also be precipitated by defective braking systems which cause premature brake lock-up. In many cases, the defective condition of the vehicle does not cause or contribute to the accident, but the manufacturer’s failure to design a crashworthy vehicle results in excessive or unnecessary injuries.
Read the entire article here.
This article was written by Jeff Eisenberg (and James J. Gilbert), for more information please click here.
