Business Studies

Part A Prepare an argument that explains the theories of recovery consumers might use in similar product liability lawsuits.

Part B The 11-year-old boy in the lawsuit mentioned in the video and article above was not in a booster seat. The father, seated in the front, was not wearing a seatbelt. Explain what defenses may be available to car manufacturers when similar injuries are involved.

View the following video: http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/consumer-group-demands-new-car-seat-safety-standards/.

Then read this article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/audi-loses-124-million-texas-verdict-over-seat-back-failure.

Seatback Failure Lawsuit

ANSWER

Seatback Failure Lawsuit

Seatbelts, airbags, and brake systems have commonly been blamed for safety issues but seatbacks also play a crucial role in preventing accident injuries. Vehicle manufacturers have been seemingly unaware that seatback strength is an essential element of car safety. Weak and flimsy seatbacks collapse backward when a vehicle is rear-ended resulting in the seat occupants to be partially or fully ejected from the vehicle, injure rear occupants, or suffer spinal cord injury and neck fracture. The motorist may also lose control of the vehicle and be unable to keep the car from swerving. Automobile manufacturers have been aware of inadequate bucket seat and seatback systems used in their vehicles. There have been several lawsuits for injuries or wrongful death for this reason but standards remain unchanged for a long time mainly due to pressure from the same manufacturers. Unfortunately, other basic vehicle safety instruments such as seat belts and airbags become useless when seatback failure occurs.

The national standard for passenger seats in vehicles within the U.S. was initially enacted in the 1970s through the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. A plaintiff may rely on one or more legal theories of recovery in a seatback failure case in a products liability case. Such theories include breach of warranty, negligence, strict liability, and tortious misrepresentation (FindLaw, 2018). Breach of warranty involves the guarantee a manufacturer gives to the buyer regarding the quality of a product at the point of purchase. If a vehicle’s seatback quality is less than implied, then the manufacturer is liable for breach of warranty. Strict liability recovery occurs when the company is liable for defects that may take place during the process of manufacture. Defects that may occur during the manufacture of the seatbacks are therefore liable. Tortious misrepresentation occurs if the manufacturer lied or gave misleading information about seatback safety in their vehicles.

The tort of negligence is the main recovery theory applicable to seatback failure cases. A plaintiff is required to prove that the company owed a duty to the claimant, breached the duty, the breach was the cause and the proximate cause, and the claimant ultimately suffered actual injuries or death as a result of the manufacturer’s negligent action. The plaintiff should prove that the vehicle manufacturer did not provide the required standard of care and was it not for the company’s negligence, injuries would not have occurred. It is also the duty of the plaintiff to demonstrate that the company could have foreseen the risks associated with seatback at the time of manufacturing.

The vehicle manufacturer may use one or several arguments to counter liability. The more common argument is that the claimant misused the car or the seats in a manner that was not likely foreseeable by the company. The defendant may also accuse the plaintiff of negligence when using the product or on the claimant assuming the risk associated with the vehicle (FindLaw, 2018). In the Texas Audi verdict, Volkswagen accused the father of negligence on his part as he was not wearing a seat belt. The court found the father 20 percent liable for the accident and injuries. Such defenses may also be employed in breach of warranty lawsuits. In tortious misrepresentation cases, the defense is grounded on whether the car user’s reliance on the manufacturer’s selling statement is justifiable.

References

FindLaw. (2018). Legal basis for liability in product cases. FindLaw. https://injury.findlaw.com/product-liability/legal-basis-for-liability-in-product-cases.html#:~:text=A%20plaintiff%20may%20rely%20on,and%20strict%20liability%20in%20tort.