Houston Injury and Accident Lawyer & Attorney : Vujasinovic & Beckcom Law Firm : Workplace Injuries, Car Accidents, Insurance Claims : Harris County, Texas

A verdict was reached in favor of a man who suffered fatal head injuries when he was partially ejected through the right rear window of the SUV in which he was a passenger.

According to reports, the driver lost control of the SUV.  The SUV then rolled over.  During the rollover sequence, the seat belt failed to restrain the man, and his head was ejected from the vehicle.  He suffered fatal injuries as a result.

His parent and his estate sued the manufacturer of the SUV, alleging that the front passenger seat belt was defective, specifically because it was designed in a way that permitted it to extend too far in an accident.

The case was styled Laliberte v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp..  It was tried in Palm Beach Co. Cir., No. 50 2005 CA 6369 AI, February 26, 2008.

Did you know that car manufacturers are required to design their cars so that the passengers and drivers are able to survive in routine and expected accidents?

This is called the legal doctrine of "crashworthiness."  The legal doctrine has been around for almost 40 years. 

You can read more about crashworthiness by clicking this link.

Despite being required to manufacture safe cars and trucks, some vehicle manufacturers still do not take proper steps to design their vehicles safely. 

Do you think vehicle manufacturers should be requires to design their vehicles with proper safety features built in? 

Or, if someone is in a wreck caused by another driver, should that other driver bear all the fault for the person's injuries even if those injuries would not have occurred with a safer car design?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Car and truck accidents happen everyday.  And, unfortunately, people are tragically injured or killed every day in car and truck accidents.

Many times, these accidents are caused by negligence.  However, did you know that in some cases, part of the negligence can be put on the manufacturer of the vehicle for making the injuries worse or for failing to protect drivers who die in survivable car wrecks?

Since the mid-1960s, vehicle manufacturers have been required to design cars that will protect occupants from severe injury or death in most crashes.

This legal doctrine, called "crashworthiness," recognizes that crashes are going to happen no matter what, and that vehicle manufacturers should take that into account and take reasonable steps to protect people who are in crashes.

Seatbelts, airbags, and safe tires are some common examples of developments that have resulted.

"Crashworthiness" really means 5 things:

1.  control energy from the crash;
2.  maintain survival space inside the car or truck;
3.  "package" each seating position;
4.  adequately restrain occupants and prevent ejections; and
5.  prevent post-crash fires.

Some car makers are constantly upgrading their techonology to increase safety.  Some of these safety features, however, have been available to all car makers for decades.

For reasons unexplained, however, some car makers refuse to incorporate basic safety features.  As a result, literally thousands of people have been needlessly injured or killed.

Remember, cars must be designed to a reasonably safe level.  Car makers must account for foreseeable crashes and design their cars so that the people inside are reasonably protected from unnecessary injury or death. 

Millions of cars do not meet these standards and their occupants are at a significantly higher risk of getting injured or killed in unremarkable, standard car accidents. 

Given the devastating nature of the injuries and deaths, it is important for the legal system to continue to force car makers to improve the safety of their cars.  Otherwise, the innocent injured person, his or her family, and the citizen taxpayers are left footing the bill for the negligence of car makers.

Examples of defective car and truck components include:

1.  Defective airbags;
2.  Defective seats and seat backs;
3.  Defective tires;
4.  Weak roofs that crush if a car rolls over;
5.  Weak side glass, causing partial ejection;
6.  Lack of electronic stability control in rollover-prone cars and SUVs;
7.  Fuel systems that cause post-crash fires;

These defects, and many others, are often preventable, in a cost-efficient way, by the companies that manufacture cars and trucks.

Have a question about defective car, truck, or tire cases? 

Feel free to call us with your questions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has just issued a press release warning consumers that old tires may cause rollovers, crashes, and serious injury.

This is noteworthy because the tire industry and its special interest groups have long claimed that there is no relationship between tire age and tire safety.

In fact, the tire industry has actively fought against warning the public about the dangers of old tires.

You can read the press release by clicking the link below:

Motorist Urged to Check Tires Before Summer Trips

What do you think?

Should tires have expiration dates or other warnings concerning their age?

We would like to hear from you!  Please let us know your thoughts.

Want to read more about Texas accident and injury law? 

Please take a moment to read the following articles:

1.  How to select a Houston lawyer for you injury or accident case

2.  Common misconceptions in Houston truck accident cases

3.  Five things that could wreck your Houston car or truck accident case

4.  The insurance company wants me to give a statement - what should I do?

5.  How to beat the insurance companies at their own game - ask these 5 questions

6.  Do I need a lawyer for my Houston car or truck accident case?

7.  What to do immediately if you are involved in a Houston car or truck accident

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks