Expensive Lesson

Automobile manufacturers have long seemed convinced that it did not pay for them to pay more attention to safety, because the public did not want to bear the cost. Increasingly, however, the automakers are finding that soft-pedaling safety can cost them quite a bit too. General Motors learned that lesson with its Corvair line, which it dropped last week (see BUSINESS). Recent court decisions in four states against all four major automakers suggest that any car that fails to measure up to reasonable safety standards may prove highly expensive in terms of damages. Each of the cases involved a decision extending the liability of manufacturers:

>The Supreme Courts of Texas and California both ruled that a bystander injured by a faulty car may sue and collect damages from the car's manufacturer without having to prove negligence (anyone other than the owner or user is generally known in legal shorthand as a bystander). In most earlier cases only owners or users of a faulty vehicle had been exempted from proving negligence on the part of the manufacturer. But in Texas, two passengers in a car hit by a Ford truck with defective brakes were permitted to sue the manufacturer of the truck under the more liberal rule. In California, the driver of a car that was hit by a new Rambler--after the Rambler's drive shaft fell out--was similarly granted permission to sue American Motors. Summing up the reasoning of the Supreme Courts in both states, California Justice Raymond Peters wrote: "Consumers and users, at least, have the opportunity to inspect for defects and to limit their purchases to articles manufactured by reputable manufacturers. The bystander ordinarily has no such opportunities."

>The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that manufacturers owe more than a simple warranty obligation to the purchaser of a new car. A Plymouth station wagon had been driven only two weeks when its owner was overcome by carbon monoxide and suffered brain damage. Some plugs normally placed in holes in the body were found to be missing, enabling the gas to seep into the car. Chrysler argued that the laws governing its highly publicized five-year warranty should be controlling. Not persuaded, the court added Alaska to a growing list of states that now make manufacturers strictly liable for any defect that ought not to exist--warranties not withstanding. The object, said Justice Buell Nesbett, "is to ensure that the cost of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturers rather than by the injured persons, who are powerless to protect themselves."

> A U.S. district court judge in Pennsylvania held that accidents are now so common that manufacturers are liable if their cars prove unreasonably unsafe in a crash. The suit was brought by a woman who was riding in a Buick hardtop that flipped over. The roof collapsed, and the woman contended that it was defective and had added to her injuries. General Motors replied that accidents are not part of the normal and foreseeable use of the car. Judge John Fullam found that defense too narrow. While automakers cannot be required to build a "crashproof" car, he said, "passengers must be provided with a reasonably safe container within which to make the journey."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.