Can manufacturers be held liable for auto defects?

healyscanlonveugelergannon • February 12, 2016

Although sometimes a car accident is caused by a negligent driver, in some cases it is a defect in the car itself that leads to an accident. Faulty brakes, airbag malfunctions and engine fires can all lead to devastating accidents that injure or kill the individual operating the vehicle. Although sometimes dangerous and defective automotive products are recalled, this does not always prevent accidents from happening. When an accident is caused by a defective automobile, residents of Chicago may want to take legal action.

In certain cases, a person pursuing legal action after an accident caused by an auto defect may be able to do so not merely on the grounds of negligence but through strict liability. This means the individual bringing the suit need not show the automobile manufacturer was careless. However, to satisfy the doctrine of strict liability,  three elements  must be met.

First of all, it must be shown that the allegedly defective part was unreasonably dangerous. The defect at issue must have originated in the way the automobile was designed, manufactured or delivered. In some cases, a failure to warn could also lead to a defect being unreasonably dangerous. Second, the victim must have been injured due to the defect at issue when operating the automobile in the manner it was meant to be used. Finally, the victim must not have substantially changed the automobile at issue, meaning altering the automobile in a manner that alters its performance.

Strict liability is just one doctrine a products liability suit can be brought under. Of course, the information in this post is for general purposes only. A  Chicago products liability  attorney can be consulted to determine on what grounds the victim of a defective automobile can bring a lawsuit.

$1,000,000.00 Verdict

April 13, 2026
Attorneys Michael P. Scanlon and Timothy J. Ganshirt secured a $1,000,000.00 Verdict for their client, Jane Doe. Jane Doe was sexually assaulted by her acupuncturist when she went to his office for treatment. Prior to trial, the Defendant did not make a settlement offer. At trial, the Defendant's attorneys argued that Plaintiff consented and recommended that the jury award a maximum of $7,000 to $8,000 to the Plaintiff, if the jury were to award anything. Instead, the jury returned a verdict for $1,000,000.00. Michael and Tim are filing a motion to add interest, fees, and costs to the verdict. If granted, thetotal judgment could reach up to $1,234,333.06.  This case highlights the importance of making sure that you choose attorneys who are willing to go to trial to ensure your case gets the full value it deserves.

$40 Million Settlement

March 25, 2026
Matthew M. Gannon and Michael P. Scanlon secured $40,000,000 for an operating engineer who suffered from third degree burns following a blast at an industrial facility.