Dangerous Vehicles

Maryland Product Liability Cases Against Vehicle Manufacturers

November 11, 2020 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Most Maryland drivers hope that they never have to deal with the car manufacturer once they purchase a car. When someone purchases a Ford, or Toyota, or Chrysler, they do not typically expect to have to contact that company again to have to deal with repeated issues in the car. However, occasionally cars bought and sold in Maryland will have defects in them, which may make the car non-functional or even dangerous to drive. In these cases, drivers should know that they may have a civil cause of action against the car manufacturer—they may be able to hold them liable in a court.

For example, take a recent state appellate court case dealing with a defective car. According to the court’s written opinion, the plaintiff purchased the brand new car in 2011 for $44,748. The car came with a three-year, 36,000-mile bumper-to-bumper warranty, and a five-year, 100,000-mile power-train warranty. But the plaintiff almost immediately experienced problems with the vehicle. About six months after purchase, only 9,466 miles in, he brought it in for repair because the vehicle would not start. This was a recurring problem for the plaintiff; he estimated that it happened more than ten times. Additionally, the plaintiff brought his car in for repair more than 10 times over a 3.5 year period.

After 3.5 years of multiple problems with his vehicle, due to a suspected defect supported by expert opinion, the plaintiff gave up when the seat belt malfunctioned for the third time. He reached out to the defendant company to utilize his guaranteed warranty, since he was only at 44,457 miles. But he was told that his initial warranty had expired and he did not qualify for a buy-back. A few months later, while driving, the plaintiff experienced a concerning incident—the dashboard of his car lit up, the temperature gauge spiked, the car stopped, and smoke came out from under the hood. Because the plaintiff now had no trust in this vehicle and thought it was only a matter of time before it caused an accident, he purchased another vehicle.

Personal Jurisdiction in Maryland Product Liability Lawsuits

August 28, 2019 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently a state appellate court issued an opinion in a case raising an important issue that frequently comes up in Maryland personal injury cases. The case deals with the concept of personal jurisdiction. In the case, the court found that a plaintiff’s lawsuit against a car manufacturer should proceed based on specific personal jurisdiction.

Personal jurisdiction refers to the court’s ability to exercise power over a party. A court must have personal jurisdiction over every party involved in a case. In certain instances, defendants may object to the court exercising jurisdiction over them, and argue for a case dismissal. This defense can delay a lawsuit or, if the statute of limitations has passed, completely preclude the plaintiff’s recovery.

The current ruling stems from injuries that a plaintiff suffered when the passenger-side airbags in their vehicle did not deploy during an accident. The accident occurred when the plaintiff was a passenger in the car. Evidently, a Minnesota resident drove the vehicle on a Minnesota road. The driver hit a snowplow and ended up in a ditch. The passenger-side airbag did not deploy, and the plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury. The plaintiff alleges that the airbag did not deploy because of a defect. He filed a lawsuit in Minnesota; however, the car manufacturer moved to dismiss the claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction.

Court Discusses Application of Out-of-State Statute of Repose

July 24, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a product liability lawsuit discussing when, if ever, another state’s statute of repose applies. The case presents an interesting issue for Maryland product liability plaintiffs because although Maryland law does apply other state’s statutes of repose in some circumstances, courts will not do so if the case is brought by a Maryland resident.

The Facts of the Case

In 2012, the plaintiff’s Ford Escape caught fire while parked in her garage. The fire spread to her home, and she was injured as she attempted to flee the fire. The plaintiff filed a product liability case against Ford in federal court. The vehicle was manufactured in 2001 in Missouri, and first sold later that year. The plaintiff lived in Oregon.

Oregon’s statute of repose requires all cases to be brought by the later of:

Ten years from the time when the vehicle was manufactured, or
“The expiration of any statute of repose for an equivalent civil action in the state in which the product was manufactured.”

Missouri, the state where the vehicle was manufactured, did not have a statute of repose. Thus, there was a question as to what, if any, statute of repose applied to the plaintiff’s case.

Court Finds Manufacturer Not Liable for Plaintiff’s Injuries Based on a Third-Party’s Misuse of the Product

July 3, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case that presents an important issue that potential Maryland product liability plaintiffs should understand. The plaintiff in the case was seriously injured when the rear glass door of a truck bed cover fell onto his head unexpectedly. The court had to determine if the manufacturer of the truck bed cover could be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff worked for a fire department, which owned a pick-up truck. The fire department purchased a truck bed cover for one of the department’s vehicles, which consisted of a hard-top cover for the bed and a glass rear door to access the bed when the truck’s pick-up gate was open.

One day, the plaintiff went to retrieve some items from inside the bed of the truck. He lifted the glass door and leaned in. However, as he retrieved the items, the glass door fell onto his head, causing serious injuries.

Court Finds Used-Car Dealer May Be Liable for Plaintiffs’ Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

June 4, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a used car that was allegedly sold without a muffler, which, according to the plaintiffs, caused their carbon monoxide poisoning. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence to survive a summary judgment challenge by the defense, and thus, the lower court was wrong to have granted the motion.

This case presents an important issue for those who have been injured in a Maryland car accident and believe the accident was caused in part by a missing or defective vehicle component.

The Facts of the Case

A couple bought a used car from the defendant dealership. The car, which had been received by the defendant dealership as a trade-in, had 180,000 miles on it and had a number of mechanical problems. However, the salesperson for the defendant did not note that the car was missing a muffler.

Court Discusses Plaintiff’s Duty to Preserve Evidence in Recent Car Accident Case

April 3, 2018 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing when a plaintiff’s duty to preserve evidence arises. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff’s duty to preserve evidence arises at the same time a defendant’s duty does, which is when the plaintiff reasonably anticipates litigation will be forthcoming.

The case presents an important issue for Maryland car accident victims in that it illustrates a plaintiff’s duty to preserve evidence, which, if not followed, can result in serious sanctions up to and including dismissal.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff’s husband was seriously injured when a tire on the vehicle he was driving blew out, sending the vehicle spinning out of control on the highway. Eventually, the vehicle came to a rest upside down, and the plaintiff’s husband was left unconscious as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident.

Appellate Court Affirms Jury’s Verdict in Product Liability Case against Auto Manufacturer

October 17, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Nevada issued a written opinion in a product liability case that will be of interest to anyone who is considering filing a Maryland product liability lawsuit. The case required the court to consider the defendant auto manufacturer’s argument that the risk-utility test should be adopted over the consumer-expectations test, which had long been the prevailing test for product liability claims. Ultimately, the court rejected the auto manufacturer’s request to adopt the risk-utility test and affirmed the jury’s verdict in favor of the plaintiff.

Maryland courts apply the consumer-expectations test when evaluating a product liability lawsuit. This test requires courts to put themselves in the position of a consumer, asking whether the product at issue performed as expected under the circumstances. Some other jurisdictions apply the risk-utility test, which asks whether there is a reasonably safe alternative design that the manufacturer could have used rather than the design that was actually used. Under this test, it is the plaintiff’s burden to establish that the reasonable alternative exists.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving an SUV manufactured by the defendant, with her husband riding as the front-seat passenger. As the plaintiff attempted a lane change, the trailer she was towing began to fishtail, and the SUV flipped over, rolling several times. When the vehicle came to a stop, it was resting on its roof. The plaintiff was able to slip out of the window, but her husband was crushed. The plaintiff filed this product liability lawsuit against the auto manufacturer, claiming that the SUV’s roof was not sufficiently tested and was defectively designed.

Plaintiff’s Jury Verdict Affirmed in Recent Product Liability Case Against Auto Manufacturer

September 18, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion that may be of interest to anyone injured in a Maryland car accident due to a dangerous or defective component in a vehicle. In the case, the court affirmed a jury’s verdict in favor of a man who was permanently paralyzed after being involved in a car accident while riding as a passenger in a van manufactured by the defendant. However, since the manner in which the verdict was rendered may suggest that the jury was confused, a new trial was awarded to determine the appropriate amount of damages the plaintiff is owed.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was driving a van manufactured by the defendant when he was involved in a low-speed collision with the vehicle in front of him. The van rolled onto its side after the collision. Despite the fact that he was wearing his seatbelt at the time, the plaintiff slammed his head against the van’s roof, resulting in his spinal cord being severed. The plaintiff was paralyzed from the neck down after the accident. No one else in the van suffered any injuries.

The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against the van’s manufacturer, alleging several theories of liability. However, after a trial was conducted, the jury found the manufacturer liable only for failing to conduct adequate testing on the seatbelt mechanism. The jury awarded the plaintiff $1 million in past damages and nothing for future damages.

Court Allows Evidence of “Other Similar Incidents” in Recent Product Liability Car Accident Case

July 11, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued an interesting written opinion in a product liability case, discussing when a plaintiff is able to introduce evidence of similar defects in the defendant’s product that had occurred in the past.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were stopped at a highway off-ramp when they were rear-ended by a 1996 Toyota that was exiting the highway, traveling at 75 miles per hour. Two of the people in the car were instantly killed, and three other passengers were seriously injured, with one suffering from quadriplegia.

Initially, the other driver was charged with vehicular homicide; however, Toyota later announced a recall of the braking systems of many 1996 Toyotas, including the other driver’s vehicle. He was later exonerated. After the recall and subsequent exoneration, the plaintiffs in the stopped vehicle filed a product liability lawsuit against Toyota.

Court Refuses to Consider Driver’s Negligence When Hearing “Crashworthiness” Case

June 2, 2017 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

Earlier this month, an appellate court in South Carolina issued an interesting opinion in a case brought by a man who was injured when he was involved in an accident while driving a GM vehicle. The case required the court to determine if a plaintiff’s own negligence in causing their injuries is relevant when the plaintiff files a product liability claim against the vehicle’s manufacturer. Ultimately, the court concluded that a plaintiff’s own potential negligence is not relevant to the inquiry and should not be considered.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a passenger in a 1987 Chevy Pick-up truck that was being driven by a friend. The evidence presented at trial suggested that the two had smoked synthetic marijuana earlier in the day. At one point, the driver of the pick-up failed to stop at a stop sign, and the vehicle was struck by another truck towing a horse trailer. The pick-up truck burst into flames after the collision. The driver of the vehicle died, and the plaintiff was seriously injured.

The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against GM, the manufacturer of the pick-up truck, arguing that the placement of the gas tank caused the fire. Importantly, the plaintiff was only seeking compensation for his enhanced burn injuries.