Perry and Haas small logo
Header graphic of montage of duotone photos of persons from various races.
contact button link home button link attorneys page button link cases page button link the legal system page button link unsafe vehicles page button link new and events page button link
Menu item. Links to Crashworthiness main page.
Menu item. Links to When to consider the crashworthiness case.
Menu item. Links to What is a crashworthiness case?
Menu Item. Links to How to recognize the crashworthiness case.
Menu item. Links to Well known defects.
Menu item. Links to Other crashworthiness cases.
Menu item. Links to Final Questions page.
Menu item. Links to What do I do now?

COPYRIGHT© 2001
Perry & Haas, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law

PAGE 3 OF 8
next page button

A Primer on Crashworthiness
FOR THE NON-CRASHWORTHINESS LAWYER

July, 2001
DAVID L. PERRY Perry & Haas, L.L.P.

 

What is a Crashworthiness Case?

Strictly defined, crashworthiness is the ability of a vehicle to protect its occupants in the event of a crash. Since 1965, Federal statutes have required that automobile design include crashworthiness as one its goals. The case law recognizes that automobile crashes are foreseeable, and that the automobile should be designed to provide a reasonable degree of protection to occupants involved in those foreseeable, but undesirable, injurious events.

Photo of two attorneys investigating a faulty automobile door latchYet, in common terms, "crashworthiness" is often used to refer to a wide range of automotive defects. Many automotive defect cases involve, not "crashworthiness," but "crash causation." A Firestone tire that detreads causing a Ford Explorer to rollover is, strictly speaking, a "crash causation" case, rather than a "crashworthiness" case. But if the rollover also involves a roof crush or restraint failure, those are true "crashworthiness" issues.

From the standpoint of the lawyer and the injured person, this may be a distinction without a difference. The distinction is usually made because automobile manufacturers seem more willing to recognize that vehicles should include proper crash avoidance features – such as steering, brakes, tires, and lights – but resist admitting the vehicle should be crashworthy. And, in some cases, the distinction may make some legal difference. But, from the standpoint of the lawyer assessing a potential case, or talking to potential jurors, this distinction is frequently needless hairsplitting.

The important point is that automobiles, and their accessories and components, such as tires, must be "reasonably safe," taking into account the foreseeable dangers and alternative designs which are available. A product which is "unreasonably dangerous" contains a defect for which the manufacturer is liable, regardless of whether the danger involves a failure which causes a collision, or which fails to protect from collision forces, or some other injury mechanism.

In common legal parlance, all types of automotive defects which cause injury are frequently lumped together and referred to as "crashworthiness" defects. While this may not be technically correct in the historical or academic sense, it probably has the useful, practical effect of conveying a common meaning — defects which cause injuries to the users of automobiles.

 

  next page button
Perry & Haas, L.L.P. Attorneys At Law  |  2300 Frost Bank Plaza, 802 North Carancahua, Corpus Christi, Texas 78470  |  Phone: 361-880-7500, Fax: 361-887-9507