Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Practice Tip: Is It Necessary to Sue a Foreign Auto Manufacturer?

By Lawrence Goldhirsch
November 30, 2007

Foreign auto manufacturers often have American subsidiaries that import their products and market them with a warranty from the importer. If such a product injures an American due to a design defect, do you need to sue the manufacturer as well as the importer/seller/warrantor?

If you sue only the product importer, the importer may avoid discovery of the design of the product. Often the importer argues that it was not the entity that designed and manufactured the vehicle in question, and, therefore, it should not be responsible for producing any such discovery. If the plaintiff's attorney has not sued the product manufacturer, he/she may be relegated to obtain discovery from the manufacturer as a non-party witness, in the same way as one does in the United States; however, this may be an impossible undertaking. To begin with, many foreign countries prohibit pretrial discovery. It is usually not done overseas. Other nations will permit some documentary discovery but not allow depositions. Even where depositions are permitted, they may be restricted or cross-examination, which is a common-law practice, may be prohibited. All of these problems can be avoided if the manufacturer is made a defendant. As a practical matter, making the manufacturer a party may spell the difference between winning and losing. Therefore, the question is not whether to sue, but how to serve the foreign manufacturer.

This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability Image

This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.