Most people know that if they're hurt in an accident caused by a defective vehicle, they can sue the vehicle's manufacturer. They should also be aware that the company is under no obligation to simply accept liability; instead, the company will almost certainly fight tooth and nail against any suggestion of fault. That may make people wonder: How exactly do corporations defend themselves in defective vehicle lawsuits?
Answer: Corporations challenge product liability claims by defending the product itself or attacking the plaintiff and the facts of the lawsuit.
In this article we will examine some of the chief arguments a company's defense attorneys might make as they seek to avoid liability for a defective vehicle.
Disputing the Defect as Cause
If a plaintiff claims that a faulty product is to blame for their injuries, the company will probably dispute that there's anything wrong with it. This is just as true for vehicles as it is anything else: If the manufacturer can convince a jury either that defect doesn't exist or that something besides the defect was to blame, then the victim's case more or less falls apart.
No Defect Exists
A corporation might try early on to say that their vehicle or part isn't actually defective at all. They might point to others from the same production run that didn't fail the same way, or show evidence that the product met industry standards and federal regulations at the time it was made. Compliance with those isn't an automatic "get out of liability free" card, but if they have the receipts to show the car or part was approved by regulators, that can help their argument that it was safe and up to code.
The goal is to argue that something besides a defect—meaning something that isn't their fault—was the proximate cause of the victim's crash and injuries. For example, they often bring up wear and tear: If the victim thinks their brakes were defective when they failed, the company may argue that the brakes were simply worn out from time or use.
The Company Is Not Responsible for the Defect
Sometimes a corporation won't really argue about a product defect being involved; instead, they'll shift the blame by saying that someone or something else is responsible for it. That might include things like damage during transport, improper maintenance by a dealership, or aftermarket modifications made by a body shop or even the plaintiff.
Example: An SUV catches fire on the road and gets in a crash that injures its driver. Investigators find that the fire came from faulty wiring, but the SUV's manufacturer denies anything was wrong with it when it left the factory. They allege that a local auto shop botched a repair and messed up the wiring, passing the buck to a third party.
Cannot Prove Causation
If the defense doesn't think it can show the product wasn't defective, and it can't find a useful scapegoat, it may say that the defect wasn't the proximate cause of the accident or injury. Remember, the point of the lawsuit isn't to call out the company for a bad product—it's to prove that the product's faults directly led to the victim getting hurt.
This is a pretty common defense in cases where multiple factors may have contributed to a wreck. For example, if the victim lost control and crashed then the manufacturer might argue that bad roads, another vehicle, or driver mistakes could have led to that. "Even if there was a defect," they argue, "that's not what most directly caused the harm."
Blaming the Victim
In the interest of defending itself, a corporation may resort to saying that the person hurt in the accident was most responsible for their injuries. People do sometimes causes their own accidents one way or another, and companies are quick to point that out to dodge blame. Below are a few of the most commonly-used defenses focused on reflecting fault back to the plaintiff.
The Victim Misused or Modified the Product
A company can avoid liability by showing that the plaintiff used the vehicle in an unforeseeable or unreasonable way. One common way this argument is used is with aftermarket modifications—enhancements or changes that weren't put on or into the factory model. If the manufacturer learns that someone made alterations to their original design or product, they may use that information to say the changes were to blame for the crash.
The Vehicle Was Not Properly Maintained
Automakers often argue that the plaintiff failed to maintain the vehicle properly, which caused or contributed to the defect. They may get and show maintenance records (or lack thereof) to demonstrate that neglect or improper repairs played a role in the accident.
Example: Remember our previous example, where the company mentioned wear and tear were responsible for the failure of the victim's brakes. A similar argument could be made about how the victim hadn't had the brakes replaced or fixed for years—long past their expected functional life.
Plaintiff Assumed the Risk
Sometimes the defense may argue that the victim knew all about the danger or risks involved with driving their vehicle, but chose to do so anyway of their own free will. The defense is stronger in cases where the victim was directly and explicitly warned about the risk; for example, if they got multiple recall notices through different communication channels (letters, emails, phone calls) but chose not to get it repaired, the company may try to convince a jury that it did its best to provide warnings and remedies. In those cases the jury may decide the victim is to blame for not taking action.
Statute of Limitations Has Expired
Every state has a time limit, called a statute of limitations, for filing a personal injury or products liability lawsuit. In Texas, that period is two years from the date of injury. If the plaintiff takes too long to file a case with the court, the corporation can move to have the case thrown out—and many times it will be. There are sometimes extenuating circumstances to consider, but in most cases the statute of limitations is clear and non-negotiable.
Comparative Fault
If a company can't entirely escape liability, they may at least try to reduce it as much as possible. Many of the arguments we covered above could chip away at the company's perceived fault if they can argue that bad roads, lazy mechanics, or driver error at least played some role in the vehicle's malfunction.
The rules for divvying up fault vary from state to state. Texas, like many others, uses a system called modified comparative fault. The basic premise is that anyone found 51% or more responsible for an accident is considered liable for it.
Example: Mark is driving through town when his car's engine shuts off due to a defective part, leaving him unable to steer or brake. He crashes into a truck and gets hurt, then later he sues the car's maker because of its engine failure, the crash, and his injuries.
The defense learns Mark was texting and speeding just before the crash, and they argue that if he paid more attention he could have stayed in control of the car and stopped safely. Mark's attorney says the car still shut off because of the defect no matter his speed or distraction, and it was the sudden loss of power that triggered the crash and Mark's injuries. A jury agrees and finds the manufacturer was 80% responsible for the damage. Mark wins his case, but the amount of the jury award is reduced by 20% to match his share of responsibility for the crash (20% at fault means 20% less compensation received).
Why Should Consumers Care about Corporate Defenses?
Since we're litigation attorneys that work on the side of injured plaintiffs, it might not be clear why we'd lay out some strategies used by our opposition. Basically, we want people to know what they might face if they went looking for accountability from a big company. Corporations have a strong incentive to dispute and defeat any suggestion of wrongdoing, and the above defenses hopefully highlight why strong evidence, expert testimony, and accident reconstruction are crucial for plaintiffs in vehicle defect cases.
Of course, the average person doesn't know a lot about the rules of evidence or forensic analysis, to say nothing of having recognized experts on call for testimony. That's why it's so important to have experienced product liability attorneys in your corner. The Texas lawyers at Grossman Law Offices have decades of experience helping victims of all manner of accidents, including ones caused by defective vehicles. If you were injured or lost a loved one in a vehicle defect accident, reach out to Grossman Law any time for a free and confidential consultation.