The collision may explain how your car was damaged. It may not explain why you were hurt as badly as you were.
Sometimes the difference comes from what happened inside the vehicle after the initial impact.
An airbag fails to deploy. A seatbelt releases when it should remain locked. A roof structure collapses during a rollover. A fuel system ruptures and starts a fire.
When a vehicle’s failure adds to the harm caused by the crash, California law may allow an injured person to pursue the manufacturer as well as the driver who caused the collision.
This type of claim is known as a crashworthiness claim. It does not replace your case against the at-fault driver. Instead, it addresses a separate question. Did a defect in the vehicle make your injuries worse than they would have been in a properly functioning vehicle?
Easton & Easton has represented Orange County injury victims for more than three decades. Our family-run firm brings more than 100 years of combined trial experience to serious injury cases, including claims involving defective vehicles and vehicle safety systems.
An initial case review can help determine whether the vehicle itself needs to be investigated.
Key Takeaways
- A vehicle defect claim can be pursued alongside a claim against the driver who caused the collision.
- Airbags, seatbelts, vehicle structures, and fuel systems can all become relevant when a vehicle’s safety performance is questioned.
- A crashworthiness claim focuses on the additional injuries allegedly caused by the defect, rather than injuries the collision would have caused regardless.
- Expert analysis is often necessary to determine what happened during the initial impact and what happened afterward.
- California’s personal injury statute of limitations is generally two years, making early investigation important.
- Recall information, repair records, photographs, electronic vehicle data, and the condition of the vehicle itself may all become important evidence.
If your injuries seem out of proportion to the damage or circumstances of the collision, the vehicle deserves a closer look. Easton & Easton can review the circumstances of the crash and determine whether a product liability claim should be investigated.
When a Crash Becomes a Vehicle Defect Case
A normal accident claim focuses on the collision. Who caused it? What injuries resulted? What medical treatment is necessary? What losses followed?
A vehicle defect case adds another layer.
California recognizes claims against manufacturers when a defect in a vehicle contributes to injuries during a collision. The fact that another driver caused the accident does not automatically shield the vehicle manufacturer from responsibility. California courts have specifically recognized that manufacturers must account for the foreseeable risk of collisions when designing vehicles.
The issue becomes whether the vehicle performed as it should have during the crash and, if not, whether that failure was a substantial factor in causing additional harm.
That can make the difference between investigating only the other driver’s conduct and investigating the vehicle itself.
The Parts of a Vehicle That May Need Investigation
A vehicle defect is not always obvious from photographs of the wreck. Some failures only become apparent when engineers examine the vehicle, its components, and the forces involved in the collision.
Airbag systems
An airbag may fail to deploy, deploy at the wrong time, or deploy in a manner that contributes to injury. The investigation may involve the airbag module, sensors, inflator, wiring, control system, and crash data.
Recall information can also provide an important investigative lead. A recall does not by itself establish liability for a particular injury, but it may identify a component or safety issue that warrants closer examination.
Seatbelt systems
A seatbelt is designed to restrain an occupant during a collision and work together with the vehicle’s other restraint systems. The CDC reports that, when worn, seat belts reduce the risk of a fatal injury by about 45 percent and the risk of a serious injury by about half.
If a buckle releases, webbing tears, an anchor separates, or another component fails, investigators may need to determine why it happened and whether the failure changed the severity or nature of the occupant’s injuries.
Roof and structural failures
Rollover crashes can raise questions about the strength and performance of the passenger compartment.
If a roof collapses substantially into the occupant space, engineers may examine the vehicle’s structural design, the rollover sequence, deformation patterns, and the relationship between the roof movement and the injuries.
The important question is not whether a vehicle should remain completely undamaged in every crash. It is whether the alleged defect contributed to injuries that otherwise would have been avoided or reduced.
Fuel-system failures
A collision can damage fuel-system components. When fuel escapes and ignites, a person may face severe burn or smoke-inhalation injuries in addition to trauma from the collision itself.
These cases can require examination of the fuel tank, fuel lines, surrounding structures, ignition sources, and the sequence of events after impact.
The Legal Question Is What the Defect Added
This is where crashworthiness cases differ from ordinary vehicle accident claims.
The California Supreme Court addressed this type of claim in Soule v. General Motors Corp., a case in which a driver alleged that a defective wheel assembly broke free during a collision and drove the floorboard into her feet, causing ankle injuries beyond what the collision alone would have produced.
The court confirmed that a manufacturer can be held liable for the portion of an injury that a defect legally caused, separate from whatever injury the underlying collision would have caused on its own.
Reconstructing What Happened Inside the Vehicle
A photograph of a crushed car can tell you that something went wrong. It may not tell you when or why it went wrong.
A serious vehicle defect investigation can require reconstruction of the collision from the beginning.
Experts may examine:
- The direction and force of the impacts
- Vehicle speed and movement
- Crush patterns and deformation
- Occupant position and movement
- Seatbelt performance
- Airbag deployment and timing
- Structural deformation
- Vehicle event data, when available
- The relationship between vehicle damage and specific injuries
The goal is to separate the original collision from what happened inside the passenger compartment afterward.
California courts have recognized that this causation question can require technical evidence in vehicle crashworthiness cases.
In Soule, for example, the court discussed the need to distinguish injuries caused by the collision itself from enhanced injuries allegedly produced by a defective vehicle design.
Why the Vehicle Itself Can Become Critical Evidence
Once a vehicle is repaired, dismantled, sold for salvage, or destroyed, important evidence may disappear.
That makes early preservation important.
Photographs should be taken before repairs whenever possible. The vehicle’s location and condition should be documented. Relevant components may need to be preserved. Records concerning towing, storage, repair estimates, inspections, and salvage can also become useful.
The vehicle may contain evidence that cannot be recreated later.
For that reason, an investigation should not begin only after a lawsuit is filed. In the right case, preservation and inspection need to happen much earlier.
What a Recall Can and Cannot Tell You
A recall can provide a valuable lead, but it is not an automatic answer to a defect claim.
If the vehicle involved in your crash was subject to a recall involving the same component that allegedly failed, investigators can examine the recall documents, affected vehicle models, defect allegations, repair history, and timing.
The absence of a recall does not necessarily end the inquiry either. A product can be investigated for a potential defect even when no recall has been issued.
Checking the vehicle identification number through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s recall system can be one useful starting point. The more important step, however, is determining whether the alleged defect actually relates to what happened in the particular crash.
What Happens When the Manufacturer Disputes the Claim
Manufacturers can argue that the collision itself caused the injuries regardless of any alleged defect.
That defense goes directly to causation.
The question becomes whether the evidence shows that the vehicle’s condition was a substantial factor in producing the additional injury. California law does not impose liability merely because a vehicle contained a defect. The defect must have contributed to the injury at issue.
That is why these cases often require more than medical records and accident reports. Engineers, accident reconstruction professionals, biomechanical experts, and other specialists may be needed to connect the vehicle’s performance to the injuries.
California’s Filing Deadline
California generally gives an injured person two years from the date of the injury to bring a personal injury lawsuit under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1.
Other rules can affect the deadline in particular situations, so the applicable limitation period should be evaluated based on the facts of the case rather than assumed.
There is another reason not to wait.
A vehicle that appears to be nothing more than a totaled car can become important evidence in a product liability case. If it is repaired, sold, dismantled, or scrapped before it can be properly inspected, reconstructing the vehicle’s condition may become much harder.
Preserving evidence early can therefore be just as important as calculating the filing deadline.
What Evidence Can Help Establish a Vehicle Defect?
The strongest evidence will depend on what allegedly failed, but an investigation may include:
- The damaged vehicle and failed components
- Photographs and video from the crash scene
- Police and collision reports
- Medical records showing the nature and location of injuries
- Vehicle event data, when available
- Maintenance and repair records
- Recall and technical-service information
- Manufacturer service documents
- Witness accounts
- Accident reconstruction
- Biomechanical analysis
- Engineering inspection and testing
Medical evidence can help establish what injuries occurred. Vehicle evidence can help explain how those injuries occurred.
Both pieces may be necessary.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the manufacturer if another driver caused my crash?
Potentially, yes. A claim against the manufacturer can exist alongside a claim against the driver who caused the collision. A crashworthiness case focuses on whether a vehicle defect contributed to additional injuries resulting from the crash. California courts have recognized this type of enhanced-injury claim.
What if I have no idea whether my vehicle had a recall?
You can check the vehicle’s VIN through the federal recall database. An open recall involving the component that allegedly failed may provide an important lead for further investigation. It does not, by itself, establish that the recalled defect caused your injuries.
Do I need an expert to prove a vehicle defect?
Many crashworthiness cases require expert analysis because the central questions can involve vehicle design, crash forces, occupant movement, structural deformation, and injury mechanics. California’s Supreme Court has recognized the technical nature of these issues in vehicle design cases.
What if the manufacturer says the crash was so severe that nothing could have prevented my injuries?
That argument goes to causation. The manufacturer may contend that the collision would have produced the same injuries even without the alleged defect. The investigation therefore has to address what the vehicle did during the crash and whether the alleged defect contributed to the injuries at issue.
How long can a vehicle defect case take?
Cases involving engineering analysis, expert testimony, vehicle inspections, extensive discovery, and disputes over causation can take considerably longer than straightforward accident claims. The length depends on the evidence, the parties involved, the severity of the injuries, and whether the case resolves before trial.
Easton & Easton Can Investigate What the Vehicle Did
Sometimes the most important evidence from a serious crash is not found in the other driver’s statement or the damage to the outside of the car.
It is inside the vehicle.
A failed restraint system, unexpected structural collapse, or malfunctioning safety component can raise a different set of legal questions from those involved in an ordinary negligence claim.
Finding the answer requires looking closely at the vehicle, preserving the evidence, and determining whether its performance contributed to the injuries.
Easton & Easton has represented injury victims in Orange County for more than three decades. With more than 100 years of combined trial experience across the family-run firm, our attorneys understand the importance of developing serious injury cases before critical evidence disappears.
If your injuries seem inconsistent with what the collision alone should have caused, contact Easton & Easton for a case review. We can examine the circumstances of the crash, the vehicle’s condition, and the available evidence to determine whether a vehicle defect claim belongs alongside your case against the at-fault driver.
ES