We depend on our vehicles to be safe, both to operate as they should and to protect us when something goes wrong. When a vehicle or one of its parts is defective, the results can be devastating, and they fall into two broad situations. In the first, a defect causes a crash, a tire that comes apart at speed, brakes that fail, a sudden unintended acceleration. In the second, a defect does not cause the crash but makes the injuries far worse than they should have been, an airbag that fails to deploy, a seatbelt that gives way, a roof that crushes in a rollover. Both are product liability cases, and both are separate from any claim against another driver.
Crashworthiness, or the second collision
Crashworthiness: when a defect worsens the harm
One of the most important concepts in vehicle cases is crashworthiness, sometimes called the enhanced injury or second collision doctrine. The idea is that a vehicle should be designed to protect its occupants reasonably well in a foreseeable crash, because crashes are a predictable part of driving. When a defect causes injuries to be worse than they should have been, the manufacturer can be responsible for that added harm even though the defect did not cause the collision. A driver might cause a crash that should have been survivable, and a defective seatbelt, airbag, or roof structure turns it fatal. The crashworthiness claim targets that difference, the injuries the vehicle should have prevented but did not.
This is why you can have a product case even when another driver caused the crash. A claim against the driver addresses the collision. A crashworthiness claim addresses the way the vehicle failed to protect you in it. The two can exist side by side, and in Florida the fault for the crash and the added harm is apportioned among those responsible, which makes sorting out the roles of the driver and the vehicle an important part of the case.
Common vehicle and component defects
Vehicle defects appear throughout the car and its parts. Tires can come apart because of a manufacturing flaw or a design that cannot handle foreseeable conditions. Airbags can fail to deploy when they should, or deploy with dangerous force, or deploy with defective components. Seatbelts and their latches can fail in a crash. Fuel systems can be designed or built in a way that makes them prone to fire. Roofs can be too weak to protect occupants in a rollover, and some vehicle designs are prone to rolling over in the first place. Brakes, steering, and acceleration systems can be defective in ways that cause a driver to lose control. Both the vehicle as a whole and its individual components can be the source of the defect, and identifying which is part of the case.
How these cases are proven
Auto defect cases are among the most technical in product liability. They are built on the vehicle and the specific component that failed, the manufacturer’s design and testing records, crash reconstruction, and qualified engineering experts who can explain how the product failed and how a safe design would have performed. This is why preserving the vehicle and the failed part is so important. Once a wrecked vehicle is repaired, scrapped, or sold, critical evidence can be lost, so the vehicle should be kept and protected while the case is evaluated. The manufacturer’s own documents, showing what it knew about a defect and what it did about it, are frequently central, which is why obtaining and analyzing them is a core part of the work.
Recalls, known defects, and the government’s role
Vehicles and their parts are among the most heavily regulated and most frequently recalled products, and that background can matter to a case. A recall or a government investigation can be evidence that a defect existed and was recognized, though neither decides a case by itself, and a vehicle that was never recalled can still be defective. Federal safety standards also set a floor that vehicles are expected to meet, and a failure to meet them can be important, while meeting them does not automatically make a vehicle safe. Understanding where a specific defect fits against this regulatory backdrop, the recalls, the investigations, the standards, is part of building the case, and it often points toward the manufacturer’s own knowledge of the problem.
What to do after a crash involving a possible defect
If you suspect a vehicle defect contributed to a crash or to your injuries, preserving the vehicle is the single most important practical step. Do not let it be repaired, scrapped, or sold, and resist pressure from an insurer to total and dispose of it quickly, because once the vehicle is gone, the evidence usually goes with it. Keep any documents about the vehicle, note any recalls or warning lights you were aware of, and have the situation reviewed before making decisions about the vehicle’s disposition. Early preservation can be the difference between a provable case and one that cannot be proven at all.
Why these cases take a team, and why my background fits
Vehicle cases pit an injured person against a major manufacturer with deep resources, and they turn on engineering, testing data, and the cross-examination of the manufacturer’s experts. That is the kind of document-heavy, technical litigation I have built my career on, where the answer lives in the details and in taking apart the other side’s experts on the stand. I represent injured people, not manufacturers or insurers, and because these cases require real investment, I take them on together with experienced co-counsel who focus on this work. I handle your case personally, and I am prepared to take it to a jury when that is what fair value requires. Learn more about my background.
Common Questions
What is an auto or vehicle defect case?
It is a product liability claim for injuries caused by a defective vehicle or vehicle part, such as a tire that fails, an airbag that does not deploy or deploys dangerously, a seatbelt that fails, a fuel system that catches fire, or a design prone to rollover. It is separate from a claim against another driver.
What is a crashworthiness claim?
It is a claim that a vehicle defect made your injuries worse than they should have been in a crash, even if the defect did not cause the crash. The idea is that a vehicle should protect its occupants reasonably well in a foreseeable collision, and a defect that fails that duty can be responsible for the added harm.
Can I have a case even if another driver caused the crash?
Yes. A crashworthiness claim focuses on the additional injury a vehicle defect caused, so it can exist alongside a claim against the driver who caused the collision. The two address different things: the crash, and the way the vehicle failed to protect you in it.
What are common vehicle defects?
Defective tires that come apart, airbags that fail to deploy or deploy with excessive force, seatbelts and latches that fail, fuel systems that catch fire, roofs that crush in a rollover, and defects in brakes, steering, or acceleration. Both cars and their component parts can be defective.
How are auto defect cases proven?
Through the vehicle and the failed component, the manufacturer’s design and testing records, crash reconstruction, and qualified engineering experts. Preserving the vehicle and the part that failed is critical, because they are often the most important evidence in the case.
This page is general information about Florida product liability law, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The governing authorities include Florida’s strict product liability doctrine, adopted in West v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 336 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1976), and reaffirmed in Aubin v. Union Carbide Corp., 177 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 2015), the comparative fault statute in section 768.81, the two-year limitations period in section 95.11(5)(a), and the twelve-year statute of repose in section 95.031. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements.
