Opinion ID: 2071528
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Crashworthiness Claims

Text: Lindahl's defective design claim is based upon the crashworthiness doctrine, also known as the second-collision or enhanced-injury doctrine. [12] As presented in the seminal case of Larsen v. General Motors, [13] the crashworthiness doctrine is an extension of the general principle that a manufacturer has a duty to design its products to be safe for normal use. [14] In Larsen, the Court found that an automobile manufacturer could reasonably expect its products to be involved in accidents and held that the duty to design products to be safe for normal use extended to the situation in which the product was involved in an accident. Thus, [a]ny design defect not causing the accident would not subject the manufacturer to liability for the entire damage, but the manufacturer should be liable for that portion of the damage or injury caused by the defective design over and above the damage or injury that probably would have occurred as a result of the impact or collision absent the defective design. [15] As manufacturers are responsible for enhanced or additional injuries due only to the defective design ( i.e., injuries over and above those that would be caused by a non-defective product in an accident), crashworthiness plaintiffs must show that the defective product was the proximate cause of the enhanced injuries  not the proximate cause of the accident itself. The level of proof of enhanced injury varies by jurisdiction, but two general trends have emerged. The first, following Huddell v. Levin, requires a crashworthiness plaintiff to offer proof of an alternative, safer design, practicable under the circumstances,.... offer proof of what injuries, if any, would have resulted had the alternative, safer design been used.... [and] offer some method of establishing the extent of enhanced injuries attributable to the defective design. [16] The second, following Fox v. Ford Motor Co. [17] and Mitchell v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., [18] shifts to the defendant the burden of identifying the enhanced injuries due to the defective design, but only after the plaintiff has offered some evidence that the injuries were, in fact, enhanced because of the defective product. Regardless of which party bears the burden of identifying specific injuries caused by the defective design, however, all crashworthiness cases require the plaintiff to offer some evidence of a causal link between the defective design and the enhanced injuries. [19]