A serious crash can raise a question that has nothing to do with the other driver. What if the vehicle itself failed when you needed it most?

An airbag may not deploy. A seatbelt may release. A roof may collapse during a rollover. Brakes, tires, steering components, or other vehicle parts may fail in ways that turn an otherwise survivable collision into a life-changing injury.

If a defect in the vehicle caused the crash or made your injuries more severe, California law may allow you to pursue a product liability claim against the manufacturer, distributor, or another company responsible for the defective product.

These cases follow different rules from an ordinary negligence claim, and proving that the manufacturer acted carelessly is not required for every strict liability theory.

That makes the vehicle itself an important piece of evidence. Before it is repaired, dismantled, sold for salvage, or destroyed, it may need to be preserved and examined by qualified experts.

Easton & Easton, a family-run Costa Mesa firm with more than a century of combined experience, represents injured Californians in serious accident cases and can investigate whether a vehicle defect belongs in the case alongside claims against other responsible parties.

Key Takeaways

  • California recognizes strict product liability claims involving defective vehicle design, manufacturing defects, and inadequate warnings.
  • A vehicle defect can be relevant even when another driver caused the collision.
  • Crashworthiness claims focus on whether the vehicle’s design or components increased the severity of injuries after a crash occurred.
  • A lawsuit can potentially involve multiple responsible parties, including another driver, an automaker, a parts manufacturer, or other entities in the distribution chain.
  • California’s two-year limitations period for personal injury claims under Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1 can be critical, but the rules governing when a claim accrues can vary with the facts.
  • Preserving the vehicle and its components early can be essential because repairs or salvage may destroy evidence needed to determine what failed.

When a Vehicle Defect May Be Part of the Case

Not every bad crash is a product liability case. Sometimes the evidence points entirely to driver conduct or road conditions. Other times, something about the vehicle deserves closer examination.

The details inside the wreck can provide that clue.

Perhaps the steering system stopped responding. Maybe the brakes failed to perform as expected. An airbag might have failed to deploy, or a seatbelt may have detached during the collision. A roof, seat, door, seatback, or other structural component may also have failed in a way that contributed to the severity of the injuries.

The important question is not only why the vehicles collided. It is also whether a defect in one of those vehicles played a substantial role in causing the injuries.

That investigation can involve the vehicle itself, photographs from the crash scene, maintenance records, electronic data, medical records, recall information, repair history, witness accounts, and an examination by an automotive or engineering expert.

California courts recognize strict liability for defective products, including claims against manufacturers, distributors, and sellers. The recognized categories include manufacturing defects, design defects, and warning defects.

Three Ways a Vehicle Can Be Defective

A product liability investigation does not have to fit neatly into one category. The evidence may support more than one theory.

A Defective Design

A design defect exists when the problem is built into the product itself. Every vehicle manufactured according to that design may share the same dangerous characteristic.

An SUV, for example, could have a design that creates an unreasonable rollover risk under circumstances that should have been anticipated. A particular component could also be designed in a way that leaves occupants unnecessarily vulnerable during a collision.

California law recognizes design defect as one of the established theories of strict product liability.

A Manufacturing Defect

A manufacturing defect is different. The vehicle’s overall design may be safe, but something went wrong while a particular vehicle or component was being produced.

A defective weld, improperly installed component, damaged brake part, or improperly assembled restraint system could cause one vehicle to differ from what the manufacturer intended.

The question becomes whether that departure from the intended product contributed to the injury.

An Inadequate Warning

Sometimes the vehicle is manufactured according to its intended design, but consumers are not adequately warned about a significant safety risk.

A warning claim can involve the information provided to consumers, including whether appropriate instructions or warnings were supplied concerning a foreseeable danger. California recognizes warning defects as a separate product liability theory.

Unlike some manufacturing and design defect theories, failure-to-warn claims can involve examination of the manufacturer’s conduct and what risks were known or knowable.

What If the Vehicle Did Not Cause the Crash?

This is where many people overlook a potential product liability claim.

A defective vehicle component does not have to be the reason two cars collided for the defect to matter. The vehicle may have failed to protect its occupants once the collision occurred.

California product liability law recognizes this type of issue through crashworthiness principles. The focus is on whether the vehicle or one of its components performed inadequately during the crash and thereby increased the injuries suffered.

Consider a collision that would ordinarily cause relatively limited injuries. If the roof collapses, a seatbelt fails, or another restraint component does not perform as expected, the resulting injuries may be substantially more severe.

That creates a different question from who caused the original collision.

The investigation therefore needs to examine both events. What caused the crash, and what caused the injuries?

You May Have Claims Against More Than One Party

A product liability claim does not automatically replace a claim against another driver.

The evidence may point to multiple contributing causes. Another driver may have caused the collision while a defective vehicle component increased the severity of the injuries. A defective tire may have contributed to a single-vehicle crash while a separate design issue made the resulting injuries worse.

California’s comparative fault rules allow responsibility to be divided among parties according to the circumstances of the case. The presence of fault on the part of another person is therefore something an attorney must analyze alongside the product defect, not a reason to ignore the vehicle.

The potential defendants can also extend beyond the automaker. Depending on the evidence, a case may involve a parts manufacturer, distributor, seller, or another entity involved in placing the defective product into the stream of commerce. California courts recognize strict liability beyond the vehicle manufacturer itself.

Why Single-Vehicle Crashes Deserve a Closer Look

A crash involving only one vehicle can leave people wondering where responsibility lies.

If there was no other driver involved, investigators need to examine the vehicle and surrounding circumstances more closely. Tire failure, steering problems, brake problems, unexpected acceleration, structural failure, or other mechanical issues can become important lines of inquiry.

That does not establish that a defect caused the crash. It does give investigators a reason to look beyond assumptions about driver error.

The physical vehicle can be the most important starting point.

Preserve the Vehicle Before the Evidence Changes

A wrecked vehicle is more than damaged property when a product liability claim may be involved.

Once a vehicle is repaired, dismantled, sold for salvage, or destroyed, important evidence may be altered or lost. The condition of a failed component, the location of damage, deployment of restraints, electronic information, and other physical evidence can help an expert reconstruct what happened.

That is why preservation should be addressed early.

An attorney may need to coordinate an inspection, identify the vehicle’s VIN, obtain photographs and repair records, review applicable recalls and technical information, and determine which experts should examine the vehicle.

You can also search the vehicle’s recall history through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s recall database. A recall can provide useful information, but the absence of a recall does not by itself resolve whether a defect exists.

How Long Do You Have to File a Vehicle Defect Claim in California?

California’s statute of limitations can make timing important in a serious injury case.

Code of Civil Procedure Section 335.1 provides a two-year limitations period for actions based on injury to a person. The date on which a particular claim accrues can depend on the facts and applicable legal rules, so the two-year period should not be treated as a universal answer for every possible product liability theory.

That is one reason waiting to investigate the vehicle can create unnecessary problems. An attorney may need substantial time to obtain records, preserve physical evidence, arrange an inspection, identify potentially responsible companies, and determine which legal theories the evidence supports.

If you are considering a claim, having the vehicle and accident evidence reviewed early can help protect the investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue an automaker if there was never a recall?

Yes. A recall is not a prerequisite to bringing a product liability claim. The question is whether the evidence supports a legally recognized defect and establishes the required connection between that defect and your injuries.

A recall can be relevant evidence, but its existence or absence does not by itself decide the case.

What if the police report says I caused the crash?

That does not automatically answer whether a vehicle defect contributed to your injuries.

A police report may address the circumstances surrounding the collision, while a product liability investigation can require a separate examination of the vehicle, its components, and the mechanics of the injuries.

Both issues may need to be evaluated.

Do I need to keep the damaged vehicle?

If possible, preserve it and avoid repairs or disposal until you have obtained legal advice about the potential claim.

The vehicle may contain physical evidence that cannot be recreated after parts are replaced or the vehicle is destroyed. If keeping the vehicle is impractical, speak with an attorney promptly about preservation and inspection options.

Can I bring a claim against a manufacturer located outside the United States?

Potentially. The identity of the proper defendants and whether a California court has jurisdiction over a particular company depend on the facts.

A product liability investigation can involve the automaker, U.S. entities, parts manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and other companies involved with the vehicle. Those relationships should be identified before deciding who belongs in a lawsuit.

Building the Evidence Behind a Vehicle Defect Claim

The strongest product liability cases are built from evidence rather than assumptions.

That can mean determining exactly what happened during the collision, documenting the vehicle’s condition, identifying the failed component, researching the vehicle’s history, examining applicable recalls or technical information, and working with qualified experts when the mechanics require specialized analysis.

Medical evidence matters too. If the claim is that a defective restraint system or structural component made an injury worse, the medical records need to connect the injury pattern to what occurred inside the vehicle.

The goal is to establish a clear chain between the product, the alleged defect, the crash or impact, and the resulting harm.

Easton & Easton for Serious California Vehicle Defect Cases

When a vehicle may be part of the reason a crash caused catastrophic injuries, the case requires more than an ordinary insurance investigation.

The vehicle may need to be preserved. Its components may need to be examined. The circumstances of the collision need to be reconstructed. And the evidence may need to distinguish between what another driver did and what the vehicle itself did when it mattered most.

Easton & Easton brings more than a century of combined experience to serious injury litigation and reports more than $500 million recovered for clients. Our attorneys can investigate whether a defective vehicle, component, or safety system belongs among the causes of a serious injury.

If you suspect the vehicle itself contributed to what happened, contacting the firm before the vehicle is repaired or disposed of can help protect evidence that may become difficult to recover later. Contact Easton & Easton to discuss the crash, the vehicle, and the evidence available for investigation.