This column focuses on two recent rulings in automobile crashworthiness cases. The Lindemann decision by a Washington appellate court examines the potential interface of the so-called “eggshell plaintiff” rule with a crashworthiness/enhanced injury claim. The Rupert decision by a federal court in Pennsylvania examines the reliability deficits in an expert’s conclusions about certain crashworthiness features he claimed would have reduced the injuries.
In Lindemann v. Toyota Motor Corp.1 a drunken driver crossed the center line and caused a collision. Plaintiff sued the manufacturer of her own Lexus vehicle contending that defective design at the front end caused the passenger compartment to collapse resulting in a loss of occupant space. The lack of crashworthiness, she claimed, caused her to suffer enhanced injuries, that is, injuries over and above what would have occurred in a crashworthy car. Under the automobile crashworthiness doctrine, a manufacturer may be held liable for unreasonably dangerous defects that increase injuries in a collision beyond those that would have been sustained absent the defects. In order to prove or disprove such a claim and the degree of injury enhancement, the parties usually rely on expert testimony.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
