Defective Car Injury Lawyer
Robert J. Hartigan is the founding attorney of Lionhart Injury Law, representing clients injured by defective vehicles and automotive components in Massachusetts and Georgia. A Super Lawyers Rising Star in 2021, 2022, and 2026 with an Avvo Rating of 10.0 (Superb), Robert pursues automobile manufacturers, parts suppliers, and dealers under both negligence and strict liability theories. He works with automotive engineers and accident reconstruction experts to establish defects and causation in complex product liability cases. With more than $15 million recovered for injury victims and offices in Boston and Atlanta, Robert has the resources and experience to take on major automotive corporations and hold them accountable for the harm their defective products cause.
When the Vehicle or One of Its Components Causes or Worsens the Injury
Not every serious car accident is caused solely by a careless driver. Sometimes the vehicle itself fails when it matters most.
An airbag does not deploy. A seat belt unlatches during impact. A tire suffers a catastrophic failure at highway speed. A defective steering or braking component contributes to a loss of control. A fuel-system defect turns an otherwise survivable collision into a fire. A roof or occupant-protection system fails to provide the protection it was designed to provide.
When a defective vehicle or automotive component causes a crash or makes the resulting injuries more severe, the case may involve much more than a claim against another driver. A defective car injury lawyer can investigate whether an automobile manufacturer, component manufacturer, seller, distributor, or another legally responsible party should also be held accountable.
My name is Robert J. Hartigan, founding attorney of Lionhart Injury Law. I represent people seriously injured in Massachusetts and Georgia, including cases in which a vehicle defect may have caused or contributed to catastrophic injuries.
Automotive product liability cases are technically demanding. They can require preservation of the vehicle, analysis of electronic data, engineering experts, accident reconstruction, examination of recall and complaint histories, and extensive discovery from manufacturers.
If you believe a defective car, truck, tire, airbag, seat belt, or other automotive component contributed to your injuries, contact Lionhart Injury Law for a free consultation before the vehicle is repaired, sold, salvaged, or destroyed. The physical evidence may be one of the most important parts of your case.
What Is an Automotive Product Liability Claim?
A product liability claim focuses on whether a vehicle or component was legally defective and whether that defect caused the accident or contributed to the injuries.
These cases can involve defects in the vehicle as a whole or individual components such as:
- Airbags and airbag inflators
- Seat belts, buckles, and pretensioners
- Tires
- Braking systems
- Steering components
- Fuel systems
- Vehicle seats and seatbacks
- Roof structures
- Electronic control systems
- Suspension components
- Door latches
- Batteries and electrical systems
- Other safety-critical components
The existence of a malfunction does not automatically establish product liability. A successful case requires evidence connecting a legally actionable defect or failure to the accident or injuries. That is why preserving and inspecting the vehicle is so important.
Types of Vehicle Defect Claims
Automotive product liability cases are commonly built around allegations involving design defects, manufacturing defects, or inadequate warnings or instructions, although the precise legal theories and elements differ between Georgia and Massachusetts.
Design Defects
A design defect claim challenges the way a vehicle or component was designed rather than an isolated mistake in manufacturing one particular unit.
For example, a claim might involve allegations concerning the design of:
- An occupant-restraint system
- A roof structure in a rollover
- A fuel system vulnerable to post-collision fire
- A seat or seatback
- A vehicle stability system
- Another safety-critical component
Design defect litigation often requires engineers and other experts to evaluate the product’s design, foreseeable uses and risks, available alternative designs, testing, applicable standards, and the relationship between the alleged defect and the injury.
Manufacturing Defects
A manufacturing defect can occur when a particular vehicle or component departs from its intended design because something went wrong during production, assembly, or manufacturing.
Potential examples can include improperly manufactured components, defective materials, assembly errors, or other production problems that make an individual product different from what the manufacturer intended to produce.
Failure to Warn or Instruct
Some product liability cases involve inadequate warnings or instructions concerning a product’s dangers or safe use.
A warning claim is highly dependent on state law and the particular facts. Relevant questions can include what risks were known or reasonably knowable, when the manufacturer learned of the danger, what warnings were provided, whether those warnings were adequate, and whether an adequate warning would have affected the outcome.
Georgia’s product liability statute expressly provides that its statute of repose does not eliminate a manufacturer’s duty to warn of a danger arising from use of a product once that danger becomes known to the manufacturer. See O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11.
Crashworthiness and Enhanced Injury Claims
Sometimes a vehicle defect does not cause the initial collision at all.
Another driver may run a red light and strike your vehicle. But if your seat belt fails, an airbag does not function as intended, a seat collapses, or another safety system fails during the collision, the defect may cause injuries that are substantially worse than those the initial crash would otherwise have produced.
These cases are often referred to as crashworthiness or enhanced injury claims.
In the appropriate case, that means there can be two separate questions:
- Who caused the collision?
- Did a defective vehicle or safety component cause additional or more severe injuries during that collision?
A negligent driver and a vehicle manufacturer can therefore potentially bear responsibility for different aspects of the same incident when the evidence and applicable law support claims against both.
This is one reason I do not stop the investigation simply because another driver clearly caused the crash. If the injuries do not appear consistent with how the vehicle’s safety systems should have performed, the vehicle itself may need to be investigated.
Preserve the Vehicle Before It Is Repaired or Destroyed
One of the biggest mistakes that can occur after a suspected vehicle defect is allowing the physical evidence to disappear. The vehicle may be declared a total loss and sent to a salvage yard. An insurance company may take possession. A defective component may be replaced. The vehicle may be repaired, dismantled, sold, or destroyed.
Once that happens, proving what failed can become significantly more difficult.
When a potential automotive defect is suspected, evidence that may need to be preserved can include:
- The entire vehicle
- The allegedly defective component
- Tires and wheels
- Airbag modules
- Seat belts and restraint components
- Electronic control modules
- Event data recorder information
- Vehicle diagnostic information
- Photographs and video
- Maintenance and repair records
- Recall notices
- Technical service information
- Parts removed during repairs
Do not authorize destruction or disposal of a vehicle that may contain evidence of a product defect without first speaking with an attorney about preservation.
NHTSA Recalls, Complaints, and Defect Investigations
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the federal agency responsible for administering federal motor vehicle safety programs and overseeing vehicle safety recalls.
If I suspect an automotive defect, one part of the investigation may involve determining whether the vehicle or component has been associated with:
- A safety recall
- A NHTSA defect investigation
- Consumer complaints involving similar failures
- Manufacturer communications
- Technical service bulletins
- Similar incidents involving the same vehicle or component
A recall can be important evidence, but a recall is not required to bring a product liability claim. A defective product can cause an injury before a recall is issued, and some alleged defects never result in a formal recall.
Likewise, the existence of a recall does not by itself prove that the recalled condition caused a particular accident. The evidence must connect the defect to what actually happened.
Prior Complaints and Similar Incidents
When investigating a suspected defect, I want to know whether other drivers have reported the same problem. Evidence of prior incidents can potentially help establish issues such as notice, defect, or the history of a particular failure, depending on the circumstances and applicable evidentiary rules.
The investigation may include:
- NHTSA consumer complaints
- Recall records
- Manufacturer communications
- Technical service bulletins
- Prior lawsuits
- Publicly available defect investigations
- Reports of similar component failures
- Discovery obtained from the manufacturer
The relevance and admissibility of other incidents depend on factors such as similarity and applicable law, so the existence of complaints should not be treated as automatic proof of a defect.
Georgia Defective Vehicle and Product Liability Law
Georgia product liability law includes O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11. Under subsection (b), a manufacturer of personal property sold as new may be liable in tort, irrespective of privity, to a natural person who uses, consumes, or may reasonably be affected by the product and suffers injury because the product, when sold by the manufacturer, was not merchantable and reasonably suited to its intended use and that condition proximately caused the injury.
Georgia product cases may also involve negligence theories depending on the facts.
Georgia’s Product Liability Statute of Repose
An important distinction must be made between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose.
O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11 generally provides that a strict product liability action under subsection (b) cannot be commenced more than 10 years after the date of the first sale for use or consumption of the product. The statute also applies that 10-year limitation to certain manufacturer-negligence claims, subject to statutory exceptions.
That means the age and first-sale date of a vehicle can become critically important.
How Long Do You Have to File a Georgia Defective Vehicle Injury Lawsuit?
Georgia’s general statute governing actions for injuries to the person is O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33, which generally requires those actions to be brought within two years after the right of action accrues.
Georgia courts look to the nature of the injury rather than merely the legal theory asserted when determining the applicable limitations period for personal injury claims.
The four-year period found in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31 applies to injuries to personal property, not bodily injury claims.
A Georgia defective vehicle case can therefore involve both a two-year personal injury statute of limitations and the separate 10-year product liability statute of repose, along with possible exceptions or other deadlines depending on the claims.
Massachusetts Defective Vehicle and Product Liability Law
Massachusetts product liability law is structured differently from Georgia law.
Massachusetts does not simply apply a general “strict liability” cause of action equivalent to the product liability statutes found in some other states. Product defect cases frequently involve negligence and breach of warranty theories.
M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-314 establishes an implied warranty of merchantability for goods sold by merchants and requires, among other things, that goods be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.
Massachusetts also provides important protection for people who did not personally purchase the defective product. Under M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-318, lack of privity is not a defense to qualifying warranty or negligence claims against a manufacturer, seller, lessor, or supplier when the injured person was someone the defendant might reasonably have expected to use, consume, or be affected by the goods.
That can be important when the injured person was a passenger, subsequent owner, family member, or another foreseeable person affected by the vehicle or component rather than its original purchaser.
Massachusetts Chapter 93A Claims
Some Massachusetts defective product cases may also support a claim under the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, M.G.L. c. 93A.
Chapter 93A prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, but a product defect does not automatically create a Chapter 93A claim, and the availability of such a claim depends on the conduct involved and whether the statutory requirements are satisfied.
When a qualifying consumer establishes an unfair or deceptive act that caused the required injury or loss, Chapter 93A can provide additional remedies. Under M.G.L. c. 93A, § 9, a court may award between two and three times actual damages when the statutory standard for a willful or knowing violation, or qualifying bad-faith refusal of relief, is established. The statute also provides for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs when a violation is proven.
For many consumer claims, § 9 also requires a written demand for relief at least 30 days before filing suit, subject to statutory exceptions.
A Chapter 93A claim should therefore be evaluated separately rather than automatically added to every Massachusetts defective vehicle lawsuit.
How Long Do You Have to File a Massachusetts Defective Vehicle Injury Claim?
Massachusetts tort actions for personal injuries are generally subject to a three-year limitations period under M.G.L. c. 260, § 2A.
Massachusetts also provides a specific three-year period for qualifying warranty and negligence actions covered by M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-318, measured from the date the injury and damage occur.
Different theories can implicate different accrual rules and statutory provisions, so the actual deadline should be determined from the facts and claims involved.
Do not wait for the statute of limitations to approach. In a defective vehicle case, preserving the vehicle is often more urgent than the filing deadline. Call my office at 1-855-343-0997 to schedule a free consultation with an experienced defective car accident attorney.
Experts in Defective Car and Automotive Product Liability Cases
Vehicle defect cases frequently require expert analysis because the central questions involve engineering, crash dynamics, component performance, and injury causation.
Depending on the case, experts may include:
- Automotive engineers to analyze the design or performance of a vehicle or component
- Accident reconstruction experts to determine how the collision occurred and how vehicle systems performed
- Mechanical engineers to evaluate component failures
- Metallurgists or materials experts to examine fractures, fatigue, corrosion, or material failures
- Biomechanical experts to analyze occupant movement and injury mechanisms
- Fire or electrical experts when a vehicle fire, battery, or electrical system is involved
- Medical experts to address the nature and cause of the resulting injuries
The expert analysis must connect the alleged defect to the accident or enhanced injury. It is not enough to identify a damaged component after a severe crash and assume that it failed before impact.
Common Injuries Caused or Worsened by Vehicle Defects
A defective automotive safety system can turn a serious collision into a catastrophic one.
Potential injuries include:
- Traumatic brain injuries caused by inadequate occupant restraint or head impact. Learn more about traumatic brain injuries.
- Spinal cord injuries resulting from severe occupant movement, roof intrusion, or other crash forces. Learn more about spinal cord injuries.
- Severe burns from post-collision fires
- Multiple fractures
- Crush injuries
- Internal organ damage
- Facial injuries and scarring
- Amputations
- Paralysis
- Permanent neurological injuries
- Fatal injuries
When a defective vehicle contributes to a fatality, surviving family members may also have claims under applicable wrongful death law. Learn more on my Wrongful Death Lawyer page.
What Compensation Can Be Recovered in a Defective Vehicle Injury Case?
The damages available depend on the applicable law, injuries, defendants, and facts of the case.
A defective car injury claim may include compensation for:
- Past and future medical expenses
- Lost wages
- Diminished future earning capacity
- Rehabilitation
- Pain and suffering
- Permanent disability or impairment
- Scarring and disfigurement
- Other damages available under applicable law
A product liability case should evaluate the full effect of the defect, including whether it caused the initial accident or transformed an otherwise survivable collision into one involving substantially more severe injuries.
Potential Chapter 93A remedies may also be available in qualifying Massachusetts cases, but those remedies depend on proving the separate statutory requirements and should not be assumed in every defective product claim.
Defective Vehicle Claims and Car Accident Claims Can Overlap
A vehicle defect case often begins with what appears to be an ordinary car accident. If another driver caused the collision, I may pursue the underlying negligence claim while also investigating whether a defective vehicle or component contributed to the injuries.
For more information about claims against negligent drivers, visit my Car Accident Lawyer page. You should not have to choose between investigating the driver and investigating the vehicle. When the evidence supports both, I look at both.
Talk to a Defective Car Injury Lawyer Before the Evidence Disappears
Automobile manufacturers have engineers, lawyers, insurers, and investigators available to defend product liability claims. An injured person should have someone protecting their interests too.
If you suspect an airbag, tire, seat belt, brake, steering system, roof, seat, fuel system, or other automotive component failed, do not let the vehicle disappear into the salvage process without investigating the possibility of a defect.
Contact Lionhart Injury Law. I can evaluate the circumstances of the collision, determine whether the vehicle should be preserved and inspected, investigate recalls and similar incidents, and identify the experts necessary to determine what went wrong.
Frequently Asked Questions About Defective Car Injuries
What is a defective car injury claim?
A defective car injury claim is a product liability case alleging that a defect in a vehicle or automotive component caused an accident or contributed to the resulting injuries.
Depending on the state and facts, claims may involve defective design, defective manufacture, inadequate warnings, negligence, breach of warranty, or other applicable product liability theories.
What vehicle defects can lead to an injury lawsuit?
Potential claims can involve defective airbags, seat belts, tires, brakes, steering systems, seats, roof structures, fuel systems, electronic systems, door latches, suspension components, and other safety-critical vehicle parts.
A malfunction alone does not establish liability. The evidence must show a legally actionable defect or other basis for liability and connect it to the injuries.
How do I check whether my vehicle has been recalled?
Use NHTSA’s official recall lookup tool and enter your vehicle’s 17-character Vehicle Identification Number.
A recall may provide useful information, but the absence of a recall does not necessarily mean a product was not defective.
Can I sue a manufacturer if another driver caused the crash?
Potentially, yes.
A crashworthiness or enhanced injury claim may arise when another driver causes the initial collision but a defective vehicle component makes the resulting injuries more severe.
In an appropriate case, the negligent driver may be responsible for causing the crash while a manufacturer or another product defendant may be responsible for additional injuries attributable to the defect.
Is Georgia’s statute of limitations four years for defective car injuries?
No, not for a bodily injury claim merely because it involves product liability.
Georgia’s general limitations period for injuries to the person is two years under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-33. Georgia courts determine the applicable limitations period based on the nature of the injury, not simply the theory asserted.
The four-year statute in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-31 concerns injuries to personal property.
Georgia product claims can also be subject to the separate 10-year statute of repose in O.C.G.A. § 51-1-11, subject to the statute’s terms and exceptions.
How long do I have to file a defective vehicle injury case in Massachusetts?
Massachusetts tort claims for personal injuries are generally subject to a three-year limitations period under M.G.L. c. 260, § 2A.
Qualifying negligence and warranty claims under M.G.L. c. 106, § 2-318 also contain a three-year period from the date injury and damage occur.
What evidence is needed to prove a defective vehicle claim?
Evidence can include the vehicle itself, failed components, electronic vehicle data, photographs, maintenance history, recall information, NHTSA records, technical information, manufacturer documents, accident reconstruction, and expert engineering analysis.
Preserving the physical vehicle before repair or destruction can be critical.
What should I do if I think my airbag, seat belt, tire, or another component failed?
First, address your medical needs and make sure the accident is properly reported.
Then, if possible, do not authorize disposal, destruction, or major alteration of the vehicle or suspected component until the potential defect has been evaluated. Preserve photographs, repair and maintenance records, recall notices, and any communications concerning the vehicle.
Contact a defective car injury lawyer promptly so steps can be taken to preserve the evidence and determine whether an expert inspection is appropriate.
Does a vehicle have to be recalled before I can sue the manufacturer?
No.
A recall is not a prerequisite to a product liability lawsuit. The relevant issue is whether the evidence establishes a legally actionable defect or other product-related wrongdoing that caused or contributed to the injury.
A recall may support an investigation, but a case can potentially exist even when no recall has been issued.
Can Massachusetts Chapter 93A increase the damages in my case?
Potentially, but not every defective product case qualifies for Chapter 93A damages.
M.G.L. c. 93A, § 9 provides remedies for qualifying unfair or deceptive acts or practices. When the statutory requirements are met, willful or knowing violations or qualifying bad-faith refusals of relief can result in multiple damages, and successful plaintiffs may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
What compensation can I recover after being injured by a defective vehicle?
Depending on applicable law and the facts, recoverable damages may include medical expenses, future medical care, lost income, diminished earning capacity, pain and suffering, permanent impairment, and other losses caused by the injury.
If another driver also caused the collision, claims may potentially be pursued against both the negligent driver and the appropriate product defendants.
If you believe a defective vehicle or automotive component caused or worsened your injuries, contact Lionhart Injury Law before the evidence is lost. I will investigate what failed, why it failed, and every party that may be legally responsible.
Free Consultation | No Fee Unless We Win
Toll-Free: (855) 343-0997 | Boston: (617) 871-9093 | Atlanta: (404) 239-5245