Threat of Litigation Helps Ensure Defective Vehicles Are Fixed

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}

While litigation is sometimes criticized by those who see numbers rather than injured people, its long history of protecting consumers receives far less press. Particularly with regard to auto safety, litigation has been responsible for the development of several safety innovations consumers now take for granted. Dashboards and steering columns that absorb crash impact are among the vehicle innovations inspired by litigation, as are safety glass and three-point safety harnesses.

One of the most memorable auto safety innovations due to litigation is the placement of gas tanks. Although Ford Motor Company recognized that gas tanks in its Pinto models were defective, it chose to not recall and repair the vehicles to save money. The repair would have cost the company $11 per vehicle.  

In Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., a California appeals court ruled that the automaker was liable for punitive damages. The $125 million punitive damages award (later reduced to $3.5 million by consent) not only got Ford's attention, it ensured other automakers would likewise redesign gas tanks to minimize the risk of explosion in rear-end crashes.

More recently, after more than 100 people died in Ford Explorer rollovers, engineers improved SUV design. In the Explorer, defective tires coupled with design flaws that made the model unusually prone to rollover upon tire failure resulted in legal action, which in turn led to the development of stability control, according to the LA Times.

The recent Toyota recalls involving unintended acceleration provide a prime example of the effect the threat of litigation exerts on auto safety.

In March, the director of the Center for Auto Safety, Clarence Ditlow, testified before the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee. In his testimony, he noted that unintended acceleration problems not linked to mechanical defects first surfaced in the 1970s and '80s when electronic ignition and cruise control systems came into use.

As unintended acceleration problems grew, NHTSA's Transportation System Center finally conducted an extensive investigation in 1989 and drew conclusions based on the prevailing technology of the time. Decades later, these studies continued to be used to dismiss unintended acceleration reports despite the introduction of new and substantially different technology.

However, nearly 40 years after the first unintended acceleration reports surfaced, Toyota is finally paying attention. At least one class action lawsuit was filed against Toyota back in November, when Toyota was still trying to blame floor mats for its runaway cars. The worldwide recall of 8.5 million Toyotas followed shortly thereafter, with Toyota still quibbling over fixes.

By March, numerous class action lawsuits had been filed, as well as a consumer protection lawsuit initiated by the state of California accusing the automaker of fraud for allegedly hiding the defect. With its legal exposure increasing, Toyota may finally develop a remedy for unintended acceleration.