The trial attorneys at Pfaff & Gill, Ltd. excel at suing automobile manufacturers for design and manufacturing defects causing paraplegia, quadriplegia, serious brain and nerve injuries and death. In virtually every Chicago auto accident involving serious personal injuries or death, you should consider whether the design or manufacture of the product caused or contributed to the injuries. Less experienced attorneys often fail to recognize a potential case against the automobile manufacturer and fail to make a full recovery for the injured person and their family.
The product liability trial lawyers at Pfaff & Gill, Ltd. have sued the world’s largest auto manufactures, including Mazda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Volvo, Chrysler, GM and Ford. The following are examples of the types of automotive defects cases prosecuted by Pfaff & Gill, Ltd.:
Seatback Failure (Rear Impacts)
The seat and headrest are your only effective safety restraints in a rear end collision. Your seat and headrest protect you in a rear end collision only if they keep you in the seat throughout the collision. Weak seats can collapse when a vehicle is rear ended. When your seat collapses, it allows your head and neck to impact other parts of the vehicle causing serious injuries or death. Weak seats also endanger rear seat passengers and children in car seats, all of whom can be struck and seriously injured or killed by front seat drivers and passengers in weak seats.
No law firm has had better success than Pfaff & Gill, Ltd. in seatback failure cases. Pfaff & Gill, Ltd. is the only firm to win two seatback failure trials in Illinois. $14,500,000 - L.C. v. Ford Motor Co.; $27,000,000 – Estate of J.M. v. Ford Motor Co. & Mazda Motor Corp. Contact a Chicago personal injury lawyer at Pfaff & Gill, Ltd. today to learn more.
L.C. v. Ford Motor Co. involved a mother on her way to day care to pick up her daughter. She was stopped at a red light at the wheel of her 1991 Ford Explorer. She was wearing her seatbelt. A motorist traveling 52-60 mph in an older American sedan struck the rear of the Explorer. Mrs. C’s seat failed in the impact (the “seat cushion frame assembly� tore), she was thrown rearward, and her shoulders struck the rear seat seatback. This impact caused her to suffer a burst fracture of T8 and permanent paraplegia. Photos of her vehicle at the scene are shown below:
 |
 |
Ford argued that the rear ending motorist was entirely to blame for the injuries, and that their “yielding seat� design was reasonably safe. The Ford seat design met the pathetically weak governmental standard, FMVSS 207. Ford and other manufacturers of weak seats claim to design the seats so that they “yield� in most impacts, minimizing whiplash and other less than severe injuries. While the data do not support those assertions, that is their story. In the more severe impacts, weak seats do not protect the front or rear seat occupants; they endanger them. Ford was found liable and they jury awarded $14,500,000 in compensatory damages.
Pfaff & Gill, Ltd. next took Estate of J.M. v. Ford Motor Co. & Mazda Motor Corp. to trial in 2005. J.M. was seated at the wheel of his 1996 Ford Escort at a red light in Chicago. His seatbelt was engaged. An intoxicated motorist traveling at approximately 55-60 mph rear ended the Escort. The driver’s seat failed, Mr. M’s head struck the rear seat seatback or the rear header, fatally injuring him. His daughter, in the rear seat passenger side seat, suffered leg fractures only. Ford and Mazda had joint design responsibility for the 1996 Escort. Their design philosophy was the same as in the 1991 Explorer. This Ford seat also satisfied the FMVSS requirements. The mechanism of the seat failure was overload and bending, as opposing to a tearing or shearing of metal. Photographs of the car show the extent of the damage to the vehicle and the seat:
 |
 |
At trial, Ford and Mazda were found liable and the jury awarded compensatory damages of $27,000,000 to his surviving family. Ford and Mazda appealed, and the Illinois Supreme Court is expected to decide the case soon.
C.E. v. VWAG was settled more than 20 years ago in Northern California. It demonstrates a different mechanism of “seat failure.� Mr. E pulled out from a stop sign into a lane of traffic moving faster than he expected. He was rear ended. He was unbelted in his VW beetle, a late 1960’s or early 1970’s vintage. The force of the impact was not great, but it caused the seat tracks to separate, allowing the seat to tip back fully. Mr. E struck his head on the rear header, causing a C5/C6 quadriplegia. In the case of the Volkswagen designs, the weakest link in the seat system was the C into C style seat track design that held the seat to the floor of the vehicle.
Lack of Roll Bar (Rollover Accidents)
Automobile manufacturers know that their vehicles will be involved in rollover collisions, and they must design their vehicles to protect the occupants in these collisions. Rollover collisions happen with all types of vehicles. The most well-known rollover cases involve vans or SUVs. Poor choices of tires for those vehicles can exacerbate the problems presented by vehicles with high centers of gravity trying to make evasive maneuvers on roadways. Even for properly belted occupants, rollovers can prove fatal or seriously injurious if the roof structure is not strong enough to limit intrusion of the roof or the ground into the occupant space.
FMVSS 216 deals with rollover protection. It excludes certain classes of vehicles, including convertibles. While some manufacturers choose to put rollover protection in their convertibles, others do not. Take, for example, the 2004 Sebring. The vehicle shown in the two pictures below rolled over after the driver fell asleep at the wheel in the middle of the night. He was belted and the cloth roof was up. The car rolled at 20 m.p.h. in a dirt and grass median. The driver’s corner of the windshield deformed and he suffered a severe flexion injury. He suffered a permanent cervical spine injury due to the lack of roll bar protection. Had the event occurred in a car with reasonable rollover protection, this injury would not have occurred.
 |
 |
Seatbelt Failure—Inertial Unlatching/False Latch/Inadvertent Release
Seat belts are arguably the most significant safety device of the last fifty years. When they are designed and manufactured properly, seatbelts save lives. Poorly designed and manufactured seatbelts can cause serious personal injuries and wrongful death. Many seat belt designs do not account for children and small adults. If the seat belt fits poorly (i.e. across the abdomen or neck), it can cause paralysis and death.
Certain seat belt buckles are known to unlatch during reasonably foreseeable collisions. Other designs are known to inadvertently release the seat belt when contacted during a collision. Still others appear to be latched even though they are not fully engaged. Any of these auto defects can lead to severe injuries to occupants who would otherwise escape the collision with no permanent injuries.
Door Latch Failure
If an occupant has been ejected (fully or partially) from the vehicle through a door, the door latch must be investigated. Risk of serious injury increases significantly for occupants who leave the vehicle. The vehicle shown in the photo below was struck on the driver’s side in the area between the trunk and rear door. The door opened during the resulting spin and a young lady was ejected. She suffered a serious spinal cord injury after being ejected. The driver stayed in the vehicle and escaped serious injury.
 |
Injured Persons & Attorneys
If you, a loved one, or a client has sustained serious personal injuries in a car accident, you must act quickly to preserve the evidence necessary to investigate the design and manufacture of the vehicle. Having the vehicle safely preserved is an important part of preparing a product liability case. Speak with an experienced Chicago car accident lawyer to learn how a knowledgeable attorney can help.
Contact a Chicago auto accident attorney today to schedule a Free Case Consultation.
