Can Trial Lawyers Really Help Make Cars Safer?

Recently this question was posed by Automotive News, "the automotive industry's leading newspaper." As shown by the cases below, the answer to that question is "Yes."

1. Crashworthiness cases beginning as early as Larson v. General Motors in 1968 have substantially contributed to the development of what the automotive industry refers to as energy-absorbing "crush zones."
2. Litigation beginning as early as 1969 arising out of excessive roof crush in rollover accidents has been a substantial factor in the improvement of roof strength including what General Motors currently refers to as its "rugged safety cages."
3. As a result of the Ford Pinto fire litigation, Ford added a fuel tank shield to prevent puncture by the rear axle bolts and discontinued its drop-in fuel tank design in which the top of the fuel tank also serves as the floor of the trunk.
4. Two adverse rulings in 1979 forced Ford Motor Company to eliminate an "illusory park" position hazard that had resulted in a number of part-to-reverse design defect injuries.
5. Litigation in 1980 arising from a side impact with a steel pole resulting in severe injuries to a police officer substantially contributed to the incorporation of side impact door beams.
6. Adverse verdicts in Florida and California in Ford Motor Company Pinto fire cases significantly contributed to increasing the collision speed of crash tests to more accurately reflect real world collisions.
7. Litigation in the mid 1980s contributed to the identification and correction of the Audi sudden acceleration problems.
8. The fuel tank location litigation in the 1980s contributed to the relocation of all front wheel drive fuel tanks and many rear wheel drive fuel tanks to a more protected position in front of the rear axle.
9. Combined with the 1986 Report of the National Transportation Safety Board, a series of suits against the automotive industry arising from severe abdominal injuries, lumbar spine fractures and paraplegia from rear seat lap belts ultimately resulted in the transition to significantly safer three-point lap belt/shoulder harness seat restraint systems.
10. A series of successful lawsuits in the late '80s contributed to the discontinuation of the windowshade slack inducing device in GM and Ford restraint systems.
11. A large verdict in Ketchum v. Hyundai led to the discontinuance of the 1988-89 Hyundai shoulder harness-only restraint system.
12. A substantial verdict in Colorado in Miller v. Solaglas in 1991 led the entire aftermarket glass industry to revise its practices to require glued-in aftermarket windshield glass.
13. Litigation arising out of a series of injuries from collapsing seat backs in rear-end collisions including adverse verdicts against General Motors in Arizona and Illinois led GM to adopt more realistic seat back strength standards in the early 1990s.
14. Litigation and resulting publicity involving the instability of the Suzuki Samurai contributed to it being pulled from the market.
15. Following extensive litigation involving General Motors' side saddle C/K pickup fuel tank design including the large punitive damage verdict in Moseley v. General Motors in 1993, essentially all fuel tanks are now located within the protective confines of the frame rail.