Manufacturer Defenses In Rollover Litigation

Manufacturers of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) vigorously defend against allegations of design defect in SUV rollover litigation. The defendants' primary strategy in these cases is to blame the driver for losing control of the vehicle. Other defenses focus on design issues, vehicle testing, and industry norms. All of these defenses are designed to counter the plaintiff's theory of the case: that the manufacturer could have designed the vehicle to prevent rollovers in foreseeable circumstances.

Driver Error

In most rollover cases, the key design issue is whether the vehicle was sufficiently rollover-resistant--that is, whether the vehicle was designed to "slide out" rather than "tip up." A well-designed, rollover-resistant vehicle will slide out, rather than roll over or tip up, when its back end starts to come around and the vehicle turns sideways on a dry, paved road. A poorly designed vehicle--one with inadequate rollover resistance--experiences a buildup of high side forces that induces a "tire-friction trip," causing the vehicle to tip up on two wheels.

Design defect claims against the manufacturers of SUVs are strict product-liability actions. That means the plaintiff's negligence is generally not an issue and may not be used as a defense or as a damage-reducing factor. Contributory negligence is not a defense in strict product-liability action. So, if the driver was intoxicated or inattentive, the defense cannot use that at trial as a defense to a design defect.

However, evidence relating to the plaintiff's conduct (such as speed, braking and steering) may be introduced as it relates to proximate cause - that the accident happened because off something unrelated to vehicle. The defense will invariably attempt to keep the focus on the driver's initial loss of control. They will claim the driver's actions were not reasonable and were unrelated to a problem with the vehicle's design (typically referred to as "directional stability").

What's important is that the reason for the initial loss of control is not significant in determining a design defect of inadequate rollover resistance. The defense recognizes, however, the jury might blame the driver for putting the vehicle in a dangerous position.

The manufacturer will characterize the driver's actions as an "overcorrection" or "overcompensation." These words are familiar to jurors and imply blame.

Tripping Not Tipping

Manufacturers argue that most rollovers are the result of the vehicle's tripping, and that the very few untripped rollovers do not justify design modifications that would, in their view, alter the design to such a degree that SUVs essentially would no longer exist.

Defendants and their experts often spend considerable time and money on crash tests and demonstrations to establish that a vehicle rolled over because it was tripped by something like a curb or a pothole in the road, not because of lateral forces generated when the tires slid on pavement.

Establishing that inadequate rollover resistance stems from defective design requires the jury to accept the plaintiff's premise that a properly designed vehicle will slide out, rather than roll over or tip up, when its back end starts to come around and the vehicle turns sideways on a dry, paved road. In tests of vehicles in emergency-avoidance maneuvers, plaintiff experts typically demonstrate the defect by generating forces at a vehicle's limits.

Automotive manufacturers claim plaintiffs' tests of rollover instability are unrealistic, unscientific, and unaccepted by the industry. They also claim that no auto manufacturer has adopted the "slide out" design goal. Both claims, however, are refuted by the automakers' own files and by testimony of industry engineers.

Conclusion

Rollover design-defect cases are among the most challenging in automotive litigation. Allegations of a significant design defect like instability will be defended vigorously, because it threatens a whole product line and could even trigger a recall. The defense can capitalize on several common assumptions, including the beliefs among many jurors that SUVs are safer than passenger cars in most kinds of accidents and that drivers are to blame for losing control of their vehicles.

Plaintiff attorneys can overcome these challenges with careful analysis of the evidence, through discovery and through well-crafted responses to common defense arguments. Contacting an experienced personal injury/product liability attorney as soon as possible after a rollover accident is the best way to protect your rights and seek recovery for the injuries you have suffered.

Return to Main