Most product liability claims can be lumped into one of three broad categories: manufacturing defects, design defects and marketing defects. Design defects and manufacturing defects are fairly obvious – the product either has a design flaw that made it unsafe, or a mistake was made in manufacturing that made the product dangerous to use. Marketing defects typically revolve around inadequate safety warnings or instructions, although some of the highest profile examples are more literally about marketing (like the lawsuits against tobacco companies).
There have been many high-profile examples of product liability cases and class action lawsuits, both in the past and more recently, that have had a profound impact on both legal precedent and the industries that produce defective or dangerous products.
While not every product liability claim will change the world, there have certainly been cases that drastically changed industry operations and consumer safety.
Ford’s Notorious Pinto Misadventure
Ford has the unfortunate distinction of being embroiled in one of the more high-profile and still-referenced design defect product liability cases. The fuel tank in the Pinto, which was produced between ’71 and ’80, was installed between the car’s rear axle and bumper. This made even seemingly minor rear-end collisions potentially catastrophic.
What made this situation particularly noteworthy was the obviousness of the problem. The company’s designers were aware of the risk, and they chose not to redesign the vehicle to correct the problem for the sake of production time and cost concerns.
There were, unsurprisingly, fatal accidents caused by this design flaw. Medical reports from some of these accidents clearly attributed severe burns, other injuries and deaths to the placement of the fuel tank. There were multiple lawsuits related to the design flaw, including Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. in 1978.
An inflammatory aspect of the case was Ford’s internal cost-benefit analysis, where they determined reinforcing the Pinto’s rear-end would cost about $11 per vehicle and weighed that against the estimated cost of paying out death benefits to the families of people who died in Pinto crashes. They chose the death benefits.
Although punitive damages aren’t all that common in product liability cases, they were awarded in this one. This was primarily because of the company’s knowledge of the risk and their calculated choice to forego a solution for the sake of money.
The case had a long-lasting impact on the auto industry as a whole and helped lead to more stringent regulatory control over auto safety.
Firestone Tires and the Ford Explorer
Auto product liability cases are not uniquely design related. The lawsuits resulting from manufacturing defects of Firestone Tires installed on Ford Explorers in the ’90s, specifically ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires, garnered national attention and even led to legislative action (the TREAD Act).
The tires had a risk of tread separation, often when the vehicle was traveling at high speeds and the tires were subjected to high temperatures. Serious accidents caused by a sudden loss of vehicle control are common when cars, SUVs and trucks suffer tire blowouts, and there were many accidents directly attributed to these manufacturing defects.
Firestone issued a recall of 6.5 million potentially defective tires in 2000, and the controversy led to a public falling out between the two historic partners. Both Ford and Firestone went on to settle many lawsuits related to Ford Explorer accidents that were either clearly attributed to tire failures or were suspected to have been caused by the defective tires.
The Health Risks of Tobacco
The correlation between tobacco use and health issues wasn’t definitively established overnight, and it took literal decades before widespread government and societal buy-in resulted in a true change in thinking regarding tobacco products.
The first tobacco lawsuits date back to the ‘50s when individual families began suing cigarette companies after family members developed cancer or heart disease. The U.S. Surgeon General’s report on smoking in 1964 was a turning point for public awareness and a difficult-to-dispute acknowledgment of the link between tobacco use and cancer.
The major shift from individual lawsuits against tobacco companies to class action lawsuits and lawsuits brought by states occurred in the ’90s. This led to a settlement agreement between leading tobacco companies and the attorneys general of 46 states. This was known as the “Master Settlement Agreement” (MSA) and drastically limited the marketing options for cigarette makers.
Specifically, they could no longer tailor marketing campaigns to target youths, use cartoons in advertising or labeling or even sell merchandise featuring their brand name or products. They could also no longer pay to have tobacco products promoted in movies or television and were no longer allowed to sponsor events or sports with a significant youth audience.
They also had to pay for their own anti-tobacco organization, Truth Initiative.
From a monetary standpoint, the MSA requires the participating tobacco companies to make annual settlement payments to states for as long as their cigarettes are sold in the United States. The states that didn’t participate – Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi and our home state, Texas – had separate individual settlement deals with the cigarette companies.
Have You Been Injured by a Product in Houston?
The team at the Weycer Law Firm have extensive experience handling all types of product liability claims and can provide advice if you’re thinking about joining a class action claim. If you want to learn more about your rights and options, or just want to find out if your case is strong enough to pursue, call us at (713) 668-4545.