Liability of Car Manufacturers for Injuries from Collisions Between SUVs and Smaller Cars

More and more frequently, drivers of sedans and other smaller cars are injured and killed as a result of collisions with light trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). In many of these accidents, crash reconstruction experts have concluded that the injuries could have been reduced and deaths could have been prevented if both vehicles were of similar size. Other crash experts have determined that the problem with the smaller cars is that many of the less expensive models are not equipped with the same safety features that the bigger vehicles have. Statistics support the allegations that SUVs and trucks pose an increased risk or danger to drivers and passengers of other cars. In collisions between SUVs or light trucks and other cars, over 80 percent of those fatally injured were those not in the SUVs or trucks.

A number of families of those injured or killed as a result of a collision between a truck or SUV and a sedan have filed lawsuits against car manufacturers. Some of these suits have alleged that the smaller cars are unreasonably dangerous because they cannot withstand collisions with their larger counterparts. Other suits have been filed against the truck and SUV manufacturers, alleging that the large vehicles are unreasonably dangerous because they cause too much damage to smaller cars.

In one case filed in California against the maker of a large SUV, the plaintiffs alleged that the manufacturer was strictly liable for injuries sustained in a collision between the SUV and plaintiffs' sedan. The court ruled that the SUV manufacturer had no duty to protect the lives of the people in other vehicles. In another suit by the family of a young woman who was killed after her car was struck by a light truck, the family alleged that the car manufacturer was negligent for failing to install side-impact airbags. The family alleged that the car manufacturer knew or should have known that its sedans could not withstand collisions with the light trucks it also manufactured; thus, the manufacturer had a duty to provide greater safety features in the sedan, such as side-impact airbags. The family alleged that side-impact airbags were being used in the manufacturer's sedans sold in Europe.

In cases alleging strict liability for an unreasonably safe design, the plaintiff must show that there was a reasonable design alternative available to the manufacturer and that the alternative design would, at reasonable cost, reduce the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product. After the plaintiff demonstrates that a reasonable design alternative existed, it is for the judge or jury to determine whether the omission of the alternative design by the manufacturer or seller rendered the product not reasonably safe.

Contact our firm for a free case evaluation