Airbag Nondeployment and Why These Cases Are Difficult
Published .
The general concept
An airbag that did not deploy is not automatically defective. Airbags are designed to deploy in certain kinds of crashes, based on factors such as direction and severity of impact, and a crash may fall outside the conditions that trigger deployment. A product claim must connect a defect in the airbag system—such as a design, manufacturing, or warning problem—to the injuries at issue. In a crashworthiness or enhanced-injury case, the claimant may accept that another driver or event caused the collision and argue that a defective restraint system made the injuries worse. That requires proof of what injuries the crash caused with the system as it was, compared with what likely would have happened had a properly designed and functioning system been present. The initial crash, occupant movement, seat belt use, vehicle structure, medical evidence, and other injuries can all complicate that comparison.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland recognizes claims based on a vehicle design that unreasonably increases occupant injury in a collision, even when the alleged defect did not cause the collision itself. A plaintiff must prove a defect, connect it to the manufacturer or seller, and establish that it caused injury; in a design-defect claim, the proof must address a safer feasible alternative design. In Wood v. Toyota, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed exclusion of an airbag-design expert whose opinion lacked a sufficient factual basis and reliable explanation, underscoring that expert conclusions must be supported by case-specific data and reasoning. The vehicle and airbag control module may contain evidence about impact forces and deployment decisions, but interpreting that evidence often requires qualified experts. The investigation may need the vehicle before it is repaired or salvaged, event-data and diagnostic records, photographs, collision-scene evidence, vehicle specifications, engineering documents, medical records, and expert analysis. Delay can make evidence unavailable. These proof and cost demands, combined with the need to separate crash injuries from any added injury caused by a restraint defect, help explain why these cases are difficult to evaluate and litigate. A prompt, careful investigation is important; nondeployment alone proves neither defect nor causation.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Phipps v. General Motors Corp., 278 Md. 337, 363 A.2d 955 (1976).; Volkswagen of America, Inc. v. Young, 272 Md. 201, 321 A.2d 737 (1974).; Wood v. Toyota Motor Corp., 134 Md. App. 512, 760 A.2d 315 (2000).