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).
Continue reading "Crashworthiness in Utah" »
