Automotive Products Liability in New York

Many car accidents in New York are caused by driver error. However, some accidents are the result of defects in the vehicle itself. These defects may involve poor design, errors during manufacturing, or a failure to provide warnings about known hazards. When a defective vehicle or part causes an injury, the manufacturer, distributor, or seller may be held legally responsible through a product liability claim. An experienced New York automotive product liability lawyer can help you determine whether a defective part played a role in your accident and guide you through the legal process.

Sometimes, a car accident happens not because of driver error, but because something in the vehicle was built wrong, designed poorly, or didn’t come with a proper warning. If a defective part like a faulty airbag, brake system, or tire causes someone to get hurt, they may have the right to sue the company that made or sold the vehicle or part. This type of legal claim is called automotive products liability.

One of the most common types of product liability claims is called strict liability. This means that the injured person does not need to prove the manufacturer was careless. Instead, they must show three things:

• The vehicle or part had a defect when it left the manufacturer’s hands
• The defect made the vehicle or part unreasonably dangerous
• That defect caused the injury

A vehicle or part is considered “unreasonably dangerous” if it is more hazardous than an average person would expect, or if the risks of using it outweigh the benefits of the design. In some cases, people also sue for negligence (if the company didn’t take reasonable care) or for breach of warranty (if the product didn’t work the way it was promised to).

In Denny v. Ford Motor Co., 87 N.Y.2d 248 (1995), the plaintiff sued Ford after she was injured in a rollover crash while driving a Ford Bronco II. She claimed the vehicle's design made it unstable and more likely to roll over. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that even though the vehicle met federal safety standards, it could still be considered defective under New York law if it posed an unreasonable risk to drivers.

If you were hurt in a crash and think a defective car or part may be to blame, speak with an experienced New York automotive product liability lawyer who can help you understand your rights, investigate the cause of the accident, and fight for fair compensation. Waiting too long to get legal advice may put your case at risk.

New York recognizes three types of product defects: design defects, manufacturing defects, and marketing defects (also known as failure to warn).

• Design Defects. A design defect exists when a product is dangerous due to the way it was designed. In these cases, all products manufactured according to that design are affected. The plaintiff must show that the product was not reasonably safe as designed; a safer, practical alternative design was available at the time of manufacture; and that the design defect caused the injury.

  New York courts use a risk-utility analysis to evaluate design defect claims. This involves weighing the benefits of the design against the risks it poses. The plaintiff must show that the alternative design would have reduced or prevented the injury and would not have significantly reduced the product’s usefulness.

  In Denny the Court of Appeals clarified that New York uses both the consumer expectations test and the risk-utility test. A product may be considered defective if it does not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect or if the risks of the design outweigh its benefits.

• Manufacturing Defects. A manufacturing defect occurs when a product is made incorrectly, even though the design itself is safe. These defects typically affect only some units. The plaintiff must prove that the product did not conform to the manufacturer’s specifications and that the deviation caused the injury.

  For example, if a batch of seat belts were made with weak stitching and failed during a crash, those particular belts may be defective. The plaintiff does not need to show that a better design was available. The focus is on whether the product differed from how it was supposed to be made.

• Marketing Defects (Failure to Warn). A marketing defect involves a failure to warn users about risks associated with a product. Even if the design and manufacturing are safe, the product may be dangerous without proper warnings or instructions. A manufacturer has a duty to warn about foreseeable risks that are not obvious to the average user.

  Examples include:

  • Failing to warn that a tire is unsafe above certain speeds
  • Not warning about risks associated with foreseeable misuse
  • Failing to notify consumers of hazards discovered after the product is sold

  New York law recognizes a post-sale duty to warn when a manufacturer learns of a danger after the product is in the market. This may include recalls or other safety notices.

Several legal theories may apply depending on the circumstances. Plaintiffs often pursue more than one claim to increase their chances of recovery.

• Strict Liability. Strict liability is the most common theory used in product defect cases. The plaintiff does not need to show that the manufacturer was careless. Instead, they must show that the product was defective and that the defect caused the injury.

  Manufacturers sometimes argue that their compliance with federal safety regulations should shield them from liability. However, courts in New York generally allow product liability claims to proceed unless there is a direct and unavoidable conflict between state and federal law. Compliance with federal standards may be relevant but is not automatically a defense.

  In Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a lawsuit could go forward even though the vehicle met federal seat belt requirements. The Court emphasized that federal regulations did not prohibit the state law claim, and that Congress intended for states to have room to impose additional safety responsibilities through tort law.

  In Codling v. Paglia, 32 N.Y.2d 330 (1973), the New York Court of Appeals held that a manufacturer can be held strictly liable for injuries caused by a defective product, even to innocent bystanders, without proof of negligence. The case arose after a Chrysler vehicle suddenly veered into oncoming traffic due to an alleged steering defect, causing a serious crash. The jury found no negligence but concluded that Chrysler breached its implied warranty because the steering system was unfit for its intended use. The court affirmed that manufacturers are responsible when a defect is a substantial factor in causing harm, extending liability beyond users to bystanders. This case helped establish the doctrine of strict liability in New York product defect cases.

• Negligence. To succeed on a negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer owed a duty to design, build, and sell a safe product, that the manufacturer breached that duty, and that the breach caused the injury. Negligence may involve failing to test a product adequately, ignoring known defects, or failing to provide proper instructions. These claims can also allow a deeper look into the manufacturer’s internal processes, including design decisions, testing procedures, and quality control.
• Breach of Warranty. New York law allows people to file claims for breach of both implied and express warranties under the Uniform Commercial Code. This means that if a car or car part does not work the way it should, and someone gets hurt, the manufacturer or seller may be held responsible. These warranties are legal promises that products will be safe and reliable for normal use, or for a specific use if the seller helped choose the product. Even if the manufacturer was not careless, they can still be liable if the product failed to meet these basic expectations.
  • Implied Warranty of Merchantability (U.C.C. § 2-314): The product must be fit for its ordinary use. A vehicle with defective brakes may violate this warranty.
  • Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose (U.C.C. § 2-315): Applies when a buyer relies on the seller’s expertise to select a product for a specific purpose.
  • Express Warranties: Include specific promises made about performance or safety. If a vehicle fails to meet these guarantees and causes injury, a claim may be brought.
  • Third-Party Beneficiaries (U.C.C. § 2-318): Extends warranty protection to others who might use or be affected by the product, such as passengers.

If you were hurt in a crash and believe a car defect played a role, it’s important to understand which legal arguments might apply to your case. You may be able to bring a claim based on strict liability, negligence, or breach of warranty, depending on the facts and available evidence. Each legal theory has its own rules and requirements, and choosing the right one can make a big difference in the outcome of your case. To protect your rights and build a strong claim, speak with an experienced New York automotive products liability lawyer as soon as possible.

Defects can affect the entire vehicle or a single component. Common problem areas include:

• Airbags that fail to deploy or deploy too forcefully
• Seat belts that unlatch or fail to restrain
• Brake system malfunctions
• Tires that blow out or separate
• Faulty ignition switches
• Steering system failures
• Fuel system leaks or fire risks
• Weak roof structures in rollovers
• Defective child safety seats
• Malfunctioning electronic stability control systems
• Headlight or taillight failures
• Dangerous aftermarket modifications

Each of these defects may raise different legal and technical issues. Thorough inspections and expert evaluations are often needed to determine what went wrong.

If you believe a defect contributed to your accident, there are several important steps to take:

1. Seek medical attention and keep detailed records of your treatment.
2. Do not discuss fault with anyone. Cooperate with the police and explain what happened, but do not give opinions about who was at fault. Do not discuss fault with anyone at the scene or with insurance adjusters. Only speak in detail with your experienced New York automotive products liability lawyer.
3. Preserve the vehicle and defective parts. Do not make repairs until an attorney has examined the vehicle. This evidence is vital.
4. Obtain the accident report and make sure it includes relevant vehicle observations.
5. Take photos and video of the damage, accident scene, and any suspected defective parts.
6. Collect witness statements and contact information.
7. Keep receipts and service records related to the vehicle, including maintenance and repairs.
8. Ask your attorney to request records from the manufacturer about similar complaints, recalls, or safety notices.
9. Speak with an attorney experienced in automotive product liability.

Acting quickly helps preserve evidence that may otherwise be lost. This includes electronic data from the vehicle’s event data recorder.

To win a product liability case involving a car or car part, the injured person must prove that the product was defective and that the defect directly caused their injury. These cases often rely on detailed technical analysis and expert testimony to connect the failure of the vehicle or part to the accident. Experts may include:

• Mechanical engineers: They examine how the vehicle or part functions and identify flaws in design or operation. Their analysis helps explain whether the defect could have contributed to the crash or injury.
• Crash reconstructionists: These experts recreate the accident to show how it happened. They often use physical evidence and vehicle data to determine the role the defect played in the crash.
• Automotive safety specialists: They evaluate whether the vehicle met safety standards and performed as it should under normal driving conditions. Their findings help show if the product failed to protect the occupants.
• Human factors experts: These experts study how people interact with the vehicle and its features. They help explain whether a lack of warning, poor instructions, or confusing design contributed to the injury.
• Materials scientists: They investigate whether the materials used in the product were appropriate and whether any failures resulted from weakness, corrosion, or manufacturing flaws.

Common types of evidence include:

• Design drawings and specifications: These show how the product was intended to be made and are used to evaluate whether the design itself was flawed.
• Manufacturing records: These can reveal problems during production, such as errors in assembly or poor quality control.
• Quality control documentation: These records help identify whether the manufacturer followed proper safety checks before the product was released.
• Recall notices and consumer complaints: A history of problems with the same vehicle or part can support the claim that it was unsafe.
• Internal emails and safety memos: These may show that the company knew about the defect but failed to fix it or warn the public.
• Police reports and photos: Official accident reports and scene photos provide important context and can support claims about how the accident occurred.
• Data from the vehicle’s event recorder (black box): This electronic data can show speed, braking, and other actions taken just before the crash.
• Expert testing and simulations: These help recreate how the product failed and how the failure caused the injury.

In design defect cases, the injured person usually needs to show that there was a safer, practical alternative design available when the product was made. In manufacturing defect cases, the focus is on showing that the specific product didn’t match the manufacturer’s intended design or quality standards.

These cases are often highly technical and require strong legal support. An experienced New York automotive products liability lawyer can help gather the right experts, preserve key evidence, and build a solid case. If you believe a car defect caused your injury, it’s important to act quickly before records are lost or deadlines pass.

Plaintiffs may recover damages for both economic and non-economic losses, including:

• Medical bills: Emergency care, hospitalization, surgeries, medications, therapy
• Lost wages and future income: Income missed due to injury and long-term earning capacity
• Pain and suffering: Physical and emotional impact of the injury
• Permanent disability or disfigurement: Lifelong impairments or scarring
• Loss of enjoyment of life: Inability to participate in daily activities or hobbies
• Property damage: Repair or replacement of the damaged vehicle or other personal property
• Wrongful death damages: Funeral expenses, loss of support, and loss of companionship

In rare cases, punitive damages may be awarded if the manufacturer acted with gross disregard for safety. For example, if a company knew about a serious defect but failed to act, punitive damages may be available. In Walker v. Sheldon, 10 N.Y.2d 401 (1961), the New York Court of Appeals held that punitive damages may be awarded in fraud cases where the defendant’s actions show high moral blame and are aimed at deceiving the public. Although not a car accident case, it remains important because it explains when New York courts allow punitive damages. The court emphasized that compensatory damages alone are not enough to deter ongoing fraudulent or profit-driven misconduct. This case helps clarify how New York applies punitive damages to punish and discourage behavior that reflects willful dishonesty or reckless disregard for others' safety.

If you were injured by a defective car or car part, there are strict time limits for taking legal action. These deadlines are called statutes of limitations, and they vary depending on the type of claim. Knowing which deadline applies to your case is important to protect your right to compensation.

Time limits for filing vary depending on the claim:

• Personal Injury (CPLR § 214(5)): Three years from the date of injury.
• Wrongful Death (EPTL § 5-4.1): Two years from the date of death.
• Breach of Warranty (U.C.C. § 2-725): Four years from the date the product was delivered.

There are tolling provisions under CPLR § 208 for minors or people with mental incapacity. In cases of toxic exposure or latent defects, courts may apply a discovery rule in very limited situations, but this is rare for automobile accident injuries.

Calculating the statute of limitations can be complex. A missed deadline may bar your claim, so early legal advice is important. To make sure your case is filed on time, speak with an experienced New York automotive product liability lawyer who can evaluate your situation and help you take the right steps.

If you or a loved one has been injured due to a defective automotive product in New York, don't wait to seek legal guidance. You may be entitled to compensation for your losses including medical bills and lost wages as well as non-financial losses. When it comes to personal injury claims, time is of the essence. Do not delay. Contact an experienced automotive product liability attorney serving New York at Stephen Bilkis & Associates at 800.696.9529 to schedule a free, no obligation consultation regarding your case. We represent clients in the following locations: Brooklyn, Long Island, Queens, Manhattan, Nassau County, Staten Island, Suffolk County, Bronx, and Westchester County.