Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Putting Plaintiff to the Test: The Crashworthiness Doctrine
The plaintiff's burden of proof in a 'crashworthiness case' is dramatically higher than in the standard product liability action. In the automotive context, these cases are sometimes referred to as 'second collision' cases because the manufacturer's liability is based not upon the 'first collision' between the vehicles involved in the accident, but upon the 'second collision' comprised of the physical contact made between the plaintiff's body and the vehicle's interior. Generally, in a crashworthiness case, the plaintiff must prove that the alleged defect enhanced his or her injuries beyond what would have otherwise been sustained in the collision. A failure to meet the weighty burden of proof in a crashworthiness case can be fatal to one's case. The first part of this two-part series discussed a recent New York case, Katz v. Ford Motor Company and Hempstead Ford, Inc., No. 18933-00 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Dec. 7, 2005), and the definition of crashworthiness. The second part addresses whether the crashworthiness doctrine applies to a 'failure to deploy' case, how to charge the jury, and how to apportion the damages among tort-feasors.
Does the Crashworthiness Doctrine Apply to a 'Failure to Deploy' Case?
In New York, it is widely held that cases based upon an airbag's failure to deploy in an automobile accident fall under the 'second collision' or 'crashworthiness' doctrine. In Tiner v. General Motors Corp., 909 F. Supp. 112 (N.D.N.Y. 1995), the plaintiff challenged the application of the doctrine to a case in which a passive restraint system allegedly failed. In Tiner, the plaintiff alleged that the airbag did not deploy during the course of her collision and further that the seat belt failed to restrain her. The plaintiff argued that she did not have to demonstrate enhancement of the injuries because all of her injuries were caused by the failure of the airbag and seat belt, which were completely enclosed, independent, self-contained components requiring no maintenance and designed to activate in a crash strictly to prevent injuries. The plaintiff, therefore, offered no competent proof that her injuries were enhanced by any defect, or that her seat belt was defective.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?