There’s a great
illustration at the Web site of the
American Association for Justice that shows what our automobiles might be like today were it not for the efforts of plaintiff trial lawyers over the years. There is also a lengthy report titled
Driven to Safety that details the improvements in safety that have been largely the results of lawsuits filed against auto manufacturers. Here is a brief summary from the site:
In the wake of Toyota’s sudden acceleration scandal, automobile safety is once again a hot-button issue. After internal documents showed Toyota knew about potential defects, hid them from regulators, and even bragged about saving money from limiting its recalls, Toyota received the largest fine ever levied against an auto manufacturer.
After 50 deaths and 8.5 million recalled cars, this saga is yet another example of regulation as an incomplete safeguard and manufacturers that put profits over safety. Unfortunately, this scenario has been repeating itself for decades.
In the 1960s, court cases began highlighting the dangers of car design and the willful negligence of manufacturers in designing cars that they knew to be unsafe. Since then the civil justice system has worked hand-in-hand with regulation to protect Americans, while spurring generations of safety innovations.
Litigation will ultimately play a key role in identifying what went wrong with Toyota. These findings will aid regulators and legislators in protecting the American public in the future. By holding manufacturers accountable, the civil justice system will continue to spur safety innovations, as it has done for half a century.
Some would say that automobile safety is the sole responsibility of federal regulators. Others say that not even regulators should address safety, and instead it should be left to the free market to protect consumers.
In fact, neither regulation nor the market can succeed in protecting Americans alone. The slow-moving nature and political vulnerability of federal rules, coupled with the revolving door relationship between the car manufacturers and the agencies, leaves regulation as an incomplete protection. The market, meanwhile, can only dictate safer vehicles if the consumer’s desire for a safe car is matched by honest information about their relative safety merits, which is not easy to come by when manufacturers often cover up their vehicle’s defects.
Rather, federal safety standards work in conjunction with the civil justice system as a two-pronged approach to protection, which in turn spurs safety innovations in the market. Since the 1960s, the civil justice system has worked to make Americans safer. Design defect litigation has enforced safety standards, revealed previously concealed defects and regulatory weaknesses, and deterred manufacturers from cutting corners on safety for the sake of greater profits.
The civil justice system is already beginning to play a key part in holding Toyota accountable. However, this accountability will do more than just secure restitution for victims of defective Toyotas. If history is any judge, the litigation will inevitably force Toyota to fi x the problem in the future. While new laws or regulations may take months or years to enact, highlighting the problem in the courtroom immediately puts executives on notice that the American people will not accept such negligent behavior. Time and again, this has forced manufacturers to choose safety innovations over their cost-saving instincts, and likely will again.
