How Vehicle Defects Can Contribute to Accidents and Liability

When you drive along I-65 or navigate the busy intersections of Airport Boulevard in Mobile, you trust that your vehicle will perform exactly as intended. You expect the brakes to engage when you press the pedal, the steering to remain responsive, and the airbags to deploy if the unthinkable happens. Most drivers assume that if a crash occurs, it must be due to human error—distracted driving, speeding, or impairment.

While driver negligence causes many collisions, a significant number of accidents stem from a different source entirely: the vehicle itself. When a car, truck, or motorcycle fails due to a mechanical flaw or design error, the consequences are often catastrophic. These incidents are not mere accidents; they are failures of engineering and manufacturing.

Defining Vehicle Defects Under Alabama Law

In Alabama, claims regarding defective vehicles generally fall under the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD). This legal framework allows an injured person to seek compensation if they can prove that a product was sold in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous.

A vehicle is not necessarily defective just because it broke. To succeed in a claim, we must establish that the vehicle met specific criteria of failure. Defective product cases typically categorize the flaw into one of three distinct areas:

• Design Defects: These exist before the vehicle is ever built. The flaw is in the engineering blueprints themselves. In these cases, every single unit of that model line is dangerous because the design is inherently unsafe. An example would be an SUV with a center of gravity that is too high, making it prone to rollovers even during normal driving maneuvers.
• Manufacturing Defects: These occur during the construction or assembly of the vehicle. The design might be safe, but an error at the factory created a flaw in a specific vehicle or batch of vehicles. This could involve a missing bolt in a suspension system, a bad weld on a fuel tank, or contaminated materials used in a tire.
• Failure to Warn (Marketing Defects): Manufacturers have a duty to warn consumers about non-obvious dangers associated with using the vehicle. If a car has a specific handling quirk or requires specific maintenance to remain safe, and the owner’s manual or warning labels fail to communicate this clearly, the manufacturer may be liable.

Common Mechanical Failures That Lead to Litigation

A modern vehicle is a complex machine with thousands of moving parts. While any part can theoretically fail, certain components are more critical to safety than others. When these specific systems fail, they leave the driver with zero control, often at highway speeds.

We frequently investigate cases involving the following components:

• Tire Blowouts and Tread Separation: In the intense heat of an Alabama summer, tires are under immense stress. If a tire has a manufacturing defect, the tread can separate from the casing, causing the driver to lose control instantly. This is distinct from a tire that is simply worn out; this is a structural failure of a new or reasonably maintained tire.
• Brake System Failures: This goes beyond worn brake pads. We look for hydraulic line leaks, master cylinder failures, or defects in the Anti-lock Braking System (ABS) software that prevent the car from stopping.
• Airbag Malfunctions: Airbags are supposed to save lives, but defective units can be deadly. Some fail to deploy during a severe crash. Others deploy too aggressively in minor fender-benders, causing blindness or facial fractures. Shrapnel from exploding inflators is another documented defect that has caused severe injury.
• Steering Mechanism Failure: If a tie rod snaps or the power steering pump seizes, the vehicle becomes an unguided missile. These failures often occur without warning, leaving the driver unable to navigate curves or avoid obstacles.
• Seatback Failures: In a rear-end collision, the front seat should remain upright to protect the occupant. Defective seats may collapse backward. This can cause the driver to slide out from under the seatbelt or, tragically, strike a child sitting in the back seat.
• Ignition Switch Defects: A faulty ignition switch can shut off the engine while the car is moving, cutting power to the brakes, steering, and airbags.

The Doctrine of Crashworthiness

Not every defect causes the accident itself. Some defects only become relevant after the collision has started. This concept is known as “crashworthiness.”

The crashworthiness doctrine, or the “second collision” theory, acknowledges that while a manufacturer may not be responsible for the initial impact (for example, if another driver runs a red light and hits you), they are responsible for protecting you during that impact.

If a vehicle is designed correctly, the “safety cage” should remain intact, seatbelts should lock, and airbags should cushion the blow. If a defect causes the roof to crush in on the occupants, or if the fuel system ruptures and causes a fire, the manufacturer can be held liable for the enhanced injuries caused by that failure.

For instance, if a driver is hit at a moderate speed and suffers a broken arm, that is the fault of the other driver. However, if the seatbelt fails and the driver is ejected from the vehicle, resulting in a spinal cord injury, the vehicle manufacturer may be liable for the difference between the broken arm and the spinal injury.

Navigating the Alabama Extended Manufacturer’s Liability Doctrine (AEMLD)

Alabama law is unique, and the AEMLD has specific requirements that distinguish it from strict liability laws in other states. To win a case under AEMLD, a plaintiff must prove several elements:

• Defective Condition: The product was in a defective condition that made it unreasonably dangerous when it left the defendant’s control.
• Substantial Change: The product reached the consumer without a substantial change in the condition in which it was sold.
• Causation: The defect was the proximate cause of the injury or death.

The “unreasonably dangerous” standard is vital. A car is inherently dangerous because it moves at high speeds. A defect claim must show that the car was more dangerous than a reasonable consumer would expect, or that the risks of the design outweighed the benefits.

The Chain of Distribution: Identifying Defendants

One of the primary tasks in a vehicle defect case is identifying every entity that played a role in placing the defective vehicle into the stream of commerce. Unlike a standard car wreck, where you sue the other driver, a product liability case often involves multiple corporate defendants.

Potential defendants in these cases include:

• The Vehicle Manufacturer: The company that designed and assembled the car (e.g., Ford, GM, Toyota).
• The Parts Manufacturer: If a specific component failed, such as a Takata airbag or a Firestone tire, the company that made that specific part is often a primary defendant.
• The Dealership or Distributor: Under Alabama law, the entity that sold the vehicle may also be liable, provided they are in the business of selling such products. However, Alabama has specific “innocent seller” statutes that can sometimes protect dealerships if they had no knowledge of the defect and did not alter the vehicle.
• Used Car Dealers: Liability for used car dealers is more complex and depends on whether they offered a warranty or inspected the vehicle prior to sale.
• Repair Shops: If the “defect” was actually caused by a mechanic’s negligence during a previous repair (such as installing the wrong brake calipers), this becomes a negligence claim against the shop rather than a product liability claim against the manufacturer.

The Challenge of Contributory Negligence in Alabama

Alabama is one of the few remaining jurisdictions that applies the pure contributory negligence rule. This is a severe legal standard that can bar a victim from receiving any compensation if they are found to be even one percent at fault for the accident.

In vehicle defect cases, manufacturers aggressively use this defense. They will argue that even if the tire was defective, the driver was speeding, and that speeding contributed to the loss of control. They might argue that the driver overcorrected when the steering failed.

However, the AEMLD offers a specific counter to this. In many defect cases, we argue that the consumer’s conduct was not “negligent” because they had no way of knowing the defect existed. Furthermore, if the defect caused the loss of control, the driver’s reaction in the split second of emergency is often legally excused under the “sudden emergency doctrine.”

The interaction between AEMLD and contributory negligence is highly technical. It requires a legal team that knows how to frame the evidence to show that the defect was the sole or overwhelming cause of the tragedy.

Does a Recall Prove Liability?

When a manufacturer issues a safety recall, many people assume this is an admission of guilt that makes a lawsuit an automatic win. This is a misconception.

A recall notice is certainly powerful evidence. It shows that the manufacturer was aware of a potential problem. However, simply introducing a recall notice into evidence is not enough to win a case. We must still prove:

• The Specific Vehicle Was Defective: We must show that the specific defect described in the recall actually existed in your car.
• The Defect Caused the Injury: We must prove that this specific defect caused the accident. If your car was recalled for a windshield wiper failure, but you were injured in a rear-end collision on a sunny day, the recall is irrelevant.
• Notice and Repair: Manufacturers often defend these cases by claiming they sent a recall notice to the owner, and the owner failed to bring the car in for repairs. If the owner ignored a recall warning, it can severely damage their claim.

The Vital Role of Spoliation and Evidence Preservation

In a standard car accident, the most important evidence might be the police report or witness statements. In a vehicle defect case, the most important evidence is the car itself.

The vehicle is the “black box” of the incident. It contains the physical proof of the metal fatigue, the computer error codes, or the failed sensor.

If the car is totaled and sent to a scrapyard, crushed, or sold for parts, the case often dies with it. This is known as “spoliation of evidence.” If the plaintiff (the injured person) allows the evidence to be destroyed, the court may dismiss the case because the manufacturer has been deprived of the chance to inspect the vehicle and defend themselves.

If you suspect a vehicle defect caused your accident, you must:

• Do Not Repair the Vehicle: Do not let a body shop fix the damage.
• Secure the Vehicle: Ensure it is stored in a secure, covered location where it cannot be tampered with.
• Preserve All Parts: If a tire blew out, finding the pieces of the tire tread is essential.
• Contact Counsel Immediately: An attorney can send a preservation letter to the towing company or insurance yard to legally prevent them from destroying the vehicle.

Utilizing Expert Witnesses to Build the Case

Proving a design flaw requires more than common sense; it requires scientific proof. These cases essentially become a battle of engineers.

To build a successful AEMLD claim, we work with accident reconstructionists and mechanical engineers. These experts perform varied tasks:

• Download the Event Data Recorder (EDR): Most modern cars have a “black box” that records speed, braking, and steering inputs in the seconds before a crash.
• Metallurgical Analysis: analyzing a snapped axle to determine if it broke due to impact or due to a manufacturing impurity in the metal.
• Design Analysis: Comparing the vehicle’s design to safer alternatives that were available at the time of manufacture.

This level of investigation is resource-intensive. This is why these cases require a law firm with the capacity to front the costs of a major investigation.

Why Documentation Matters More Than Ever

Because of the aggressive defenses mounted by auto manufacturers, documentation is the foundation of your claim. We advise clients to maintain meticulous records:

• Service Records: Proof that you maintained the vehicle properly prevents the manufacturer from blaming the accident on poor maintenance.
• Purchase Documents: These identify the chain of ownership and any warranties provided.
• The Accident Scene: Photos of skid marks (or lack thereof) can prove that brakes failed or that a driver reacted appropriately to a mechanical failure.
• Medical Records: A clear link between the mechanics of the crash and the specific injuries sustained is necessary for crashworthiness claims.

Taking the Next Step

A vehicle defect case is a fight against some of the largest and best-funded corporations in the world. You need a team that can level the playing field. We have the experience to look beyond the police report and identify the mechanical truths behind the tragedy. We handle the complex interactions with insurance carriers, the rigorous scientific testing of evidence, and the legal maneuvering required to navigate Alabama’s strict liability laws.

If you or a loved one has been injured and you suspect a vehicle failure was to blame, do not let the evidence disappear. Reach out to us. At Burns, Cunningham & Mackey, P.C., we are ready to listen to your story and evaluate the potential of your claim. Contact us today at 800-574-4332 for a consultation.