After a serious crash, people often simplify the story too quickly. They might say someone “must have been speeding” or “not paying attention.” While this can be true, sometimes the vehicle fails when it matters most—like an airbag not deploying or a tire blowing out. These failures can lead to worse injuries, leaving victims to prove the real cause.
Defect cases are tricky because insurers often blame driver error. It’s crucial to show that a car defect existed before the crash and mattered in the accident. If you suspect a vehicle defect played a role, Dulin McQuinn Young can help investigate what happened and find the necessary evidence.
Airbag Failures: Non-Deployment, Late Deployment, and Over-Deployment
Airbags are designed to reduce injuries in car crashes, but they sometimes fail to deploy or do so at the wrong time, leading to further injuries. They may also deploy with excessive force, causing burns or fractures.
To demonstrate a defect, investigators assess crash severity, impact angle, sensor data, and deployment conditions. Issues like airbag module problems, sensor failures, wiring issues, or software errors can all be involved in the investigation.
Tire Defects: Blowouts, Tread Separation, and Loss of Control
Tire failures can quickly turn a normal drive into chaos. A blowout or tread separation can cause a driver to lose control, especially at highway speeds. After the incident, it may seem like the driver lost control for no reason, leading insurance companies to place blame without considering the underlying issue.
Investigators often examine the tire and vehicle for manufacturing errors, belt separation, unusual wear, and signs of under-inflation or overloading. Maintenance history is important, but a defect claim can still stand because a tire can fail even if the driver maintained proper inflation and rotation.
Seat Belt Defects: False Latching, Unlocking, and Webbing Failures
Seat belts are supposed to restrain the body during impact, but failures happen in several ways. “False latching” occurs when the buckle clicks but doesn’t fully engage. “Inertial unlatching” can occur when crash forces cause a buckle to release. Retractors can also fail to lock, allowing excessive movement, and webbing can tear or stretch beyond design limits.
Because seat belt injuries can be severe—head trauma, spinal injury, chest injuries—manufacturers sometimes argue the victim wasn’t wearing the belt properly. A strong case focuses on physical evidence: belt marks, retractor position, damage patterns inside the cabin, and crash data that shows whether the restraint should have locked during the impact.
The Evidence Battle: Vehicle Preservation and the “Do Not Repair” Rule
In defect cases, the vehicle is often the most important witness. Unfortunately, it’s also the easiest evidence to lose. Cars get repaired, salvaged, or destroyed quickly, and once that happens, proving a defect becomes much harder. Protecting the vehicle, the tires, the airbag module, and the seat belt assembly can make or break the claim.
Practical steps include taking detailed photos, securing the vehicle in a storage facility, and notifying involved parties that the vehicle and its components must be preserved. Event data recorders, airbag control modules, and even the seat belt retractor system can contain information that supports the defect theory—if the components still exist and can be examined.
Crash Data and Reconstruction: Showing What “Should Have Happened”
Defect claims compare what happened in an accident to what should have happened if the product worked correctly. Accident reconstruction looks at speed, angles, impact forces, and occupant movement. If proper restraint use could have made the crash survivable, this supports the claim that the defect caused more harm.
Information can come from event data recorders, diagnostic scans, onboard sensors, and physical evidence like crush patterns and skid marks. Medical findings are also key, as injury patterns can show if a person moved too far, hit interior surfaces, or was ejected due to restraint failure.
Defect Types: Design Defect vs. Manufacturing Defect vs. Warning Failure
Not all product defects are the same. A design defect means the product is unsafe even if made correctly, while a manufacturing defect occurs when a safe design goes wrong during production, like using faulty materials. A warning defect involves insufficient instructions or missed safety warnings.
These differences affect how cases are argued. For manufacturing defects, you may need to show differences from similar products. Design defects often require engineering comparisons to safer alternatives. Warning failures focus on what the manufacturer knew and whether proper warnings could have changed actions.
Defenses You’ll Hear: “Driver Error,” “Misuse,” and “Maintenance”
Manufacturers and insurers often start with a familiar script: the driver overcorrected, drove too fast for conditions, failed to maintain the vehicle, or misused the product. These defenses are common because they shift focus away from the product and toward personal blame.
A strong response is evidence-driven. Maintenance records can show the vehicle was cared for. Expert inspection can show the failure occurred before impact, not because of it. Reconstruction can show the driver’s actions were a reasonable response to a sudden failure, such as a blowout. Even when a driver made a mistake, a defect can still matter if it made the injuries significantly worse than they would have been otherwise.
When Safety Systems Fail, the Truth Is in the Evidence
A crash can happen for many reasons, but airbags, tires, and seat belts should help reduce harm, not increase it. When these systems fail, the results can be life-changing, and manufacturers often blame “driver error” because it’s easier. The key step in a defect case is proving what went wrong and how it changed the outcome.
Acting quickly is important. Preserving the vehicle, securing damaged parts, and collecting crash data can show if the product worked correctly or if a defect worsened the crash. When the evidence is preserved and the story is clear, accountability happens, and compensation can reflect the true cost of a preventable failure.