Question

Phil Parent purchased a new car from Major Car Company. Two weeks later, he was in a serious car accident when a four-wheel drive drove into the side of his car while he was driving his four-year-old daughter home from school. The driver-side airbag did not open up, and Phil was thrown through the windshield - causing the car to spin around and hit a tree. At that point, the air bag on the passenger side, where his daughter was sitting, opened -- injuring the young girl.

The driver who caused the accident was uninsured and has no money, and little chance of ever having any. Parent and his daughter have both suffered serious injuries. Parent was out of work for six months and lost his job -- his daugher nearly died. Expert testimony established that airbags cannot normally be expected to open when a car is struck from the side. There has been extensive publicity about the risk to small children seated in the front passenger seat. Explain in detail what causes of action does Phil Parent have against the Major Car Company.

Answer 1

Cause of action that phill parents can have against major car company will depend on what judicial test for cases of accident it fits into.

The first relevant test is Consumer expectation test which states that if a reasonable consumer would find the product as defective than it will be considered as defective. This happens when there is no sufficient warning displayed at the product or the product is negligently manufactured.

The other test is strict product liability test which says that despite manufacturer of product doing everything to make sure that defect do not happen and due to defect in product the consumer suffers than manufacturer will be liable.

The third relevant test would be Risk benefit test that says that the aggrieved person need to only prove the prima facie case of causation that a design feature of product was the cause of accident. The defendant has the burden of proof in these cases to prove that benefits in these types of designs outwieghts the loss.

Here in our case phill parents can very well put the contention before court through their legal council that there was no sufficient warning displayed in the car for the said air bag safety product which states that if car is hit by side than air bag doesnot work. In absence of such warning, consumer expectation test could be applied.

The other relevant test after could possibly be the risk benefit test that says plaintiff needs to only prove that because of the design feature of the product, accident happened and the airbags location in car only protects person from limited accidental scenario and benefit of that design feature is less than loss that it caused.