Products-liability defects in collision-mitigation systems

As automobiles and their drivers increasingly rely on automation, litigation over collision-mitigation systems will only grow

Automobile safety technology has advanced rapidly over the past two decades, particularly in the areas of crash avoidance and collision mitigation systems. Among the most prominent innovations are automatic emergency braking (AEB), forward collision warning (FCW), pedestrian detection, adaptive cruise control (ACC), and lane-keeping assistance. These systems hold themselves out as state-of-the-art safeguards designed to prevent or mitigate crashes before they occur. Consumers reasonably expect that when they purchase a modern vehicle equipped with these systems, they are buying a safer car – one that can “see” hazards the driver may not and intervene effectively.

Unfortunately, the reality often falls short. Automakers and their suppliers frequently promote these systems as lifesaving innovations while concealing their limitations, failing to adopt readily available improvements, or implementing them in a defective manner. When these systems fail, the consequences are severe: pedestrians struck and killed in crosswalks, cyclists crushed by vehicles that never slowed, or drivers rear-ending stopped traffic despite an AEB system that was supposed to prevent just such a crash. For plaintiffs’ attorneys, these cases represent a critical and growing frontier in products-liability litigation.

This article explores how plaintiffs’ counsel can best prosecute cases involving defective collision mitigation systems. We will cover the theories of liability, evidentiary strategies, expert witness preparation, discovery focus, and practical considerations that maximize the chances of success.

The legal framework for products liability in collision mitigation cases

Design defect

A collision-mitigation system may be defectively designed when its architecture, algorithms, or hardware choices fall short of reasonable safety expectations. The plaintiff’s burden is to show that a safer alternative design was feasible at the time of manufacture. For example, if peer automakers implemented reliable pedestrian detection with radar-camera fusion but the defendant chose a camera-only system that failed in low light, a strong design-defect case exists.

Manufacturing defect

Although less common, a case may involve a defect in the specific vehicle at issue – faulty sensor calibration, software corruption, or malfunctioning radar. Plaintiffs must investigate whether the vehicle in question deviated from the intended design, leading to failure at the moment of need.

Failure to warn/misrepresentation

Automakers often market AEB and collision mitigation systems as if they can handle scenarios they in fact cannot. (The Dawn Project www.dawnproject.com has tested and demonstrated failures of Tesla vehicles to detect and prevent collisions with vulnerable road users (VRU) such as pedestrians.) Owners’ manuals may bury limitations deep in fine print, while advertising highlights “safety you can rely on.” Failure to disclose the systems’ known inability to detect certain obstacles (e.g., crossing pedestrians at night, motorcycles, stopped fire trucks) supports a failure-to-warn claim. False advertising or negligent misrepresentation claims may also be available.

Negligence

Even apart from strict liability, a negligence theory can be advanced when manufacturers fail to act as reasonable engineers in designing, testing, and validating these systems. If a reasonable automaker would have incorporated proven safety features, issued software updates, or conducted recalls to fix known shortcomings, negligence is clear.

State of the art and the duty to incorporate effective systems

A central theme in prosecuting these cases is that automakers must provide not just any collision-mitigation system, but one that reflects the state of the art at the time of manufacture. The technology to detect and avoid collisions has been available for years, (Subaru has included collision avoidance systems in some models since model year 2014), with many suppliers developing advanced radar, lidar, and camera systems supported by robust software. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have conducted regular evaluations, highlighting both effective and ineffective implementations.

For instance, by the mid-2010s, industry leaders such as Volvo and Subaru had developed systems capable of reliably avoiding pedestrian collisions under a range of conditions. Yet, other manufacturers continued selling vehicles with rudimentary systems that failed basic scenarios. Plaintiffs’ attorneys should emphasize that the defendant chose cost-cutting and marketing over safety, ignoring available technologies that could have prevented the crash.

Key case theories and arguments

The “illusion of safety” theory

Plaintiffs can argue that automakers create an illusion of safety by equipping vehicles with systems advertised as life-saving, while knowing that those systems perform inadequately. This theory resonates strongly with juries: The defendant profited from consumers’ trust in advanced safety features but betrayed that trust.

Comparative system performance

Evidence that other manufacturers had more effective systems at the same time supports the claim that the defendant’s design fell below the standard of care. Plaintiffs should compare the subject vehicle’s system to its peers’ using IIHS ratings, Euro NCAP tests, and published research.

Known limitations ignored

Many failures occur in predictable, foreseeable scenarios: nighttime pedestrians, stationary vehicles, motorcycles, or work zones. Automakers are well aware of these limitations through internal testing, field data, and crash reports. Yet, they continued to represent their systems as effective. This knowledge – and failure to act – supports liability.

Safer alternative designs

Plaintiffs must be prepared to present specific safer alternatives. These may include:

Adding radar, ultrasonic sensors, or lidar to complement cameras.

Incorporating more robust algorithms or machine learning.

Providing over-the-air updates to improve detection.

Issuing recalls or warnings about known blind spots.

Investigating and building the case

Early investigation

Preserve the vehicle, its electronic data, and sensor calibration as soon as possible. Many vehicles store pre-crash data, including whether AEB activated. Work with experts who can download and interpret event data recorder (EDR) information and advanced driver-assistance system (ADAS) logs such as Tesla’s Diagnostic Car Log files, (see https://github.com/NetherlandsForensicInstitute/teslalogs for software to read and interpret Car Log files found on the SD card in the media control unit of a Tesla vehicle), and engine control system data such as Toyota Techstream files (see www.techinfo.toyota.com to access this software).

Discovery strategy

Key discovery requests should include:

Internal testing reports for the collision mitigation system.

Communications with suppliers (e.g., Bosch, Continental, Mobileye).

Marketing materials and internal discussions about system limitations.

Comparative analyses of competitors’ systems.

Consumer complaints, warranty claims, and field performance data.

Software version history and update logs.

Depositions of engineers and corporate representatives should probe what the company knew about system limitations and why safer alternatives were not implemented.

Experts

Expert testimony is critical. Categories of experts may include:

Automotive engineers specializing in ADAS design.

Human factors experts to explain consumer reliance.

Accident reconstructionists to demonstrate how the system should have prevented the crash.

Industry experts on the availability of safer designs.

Experts must be Daubert-ready, with robust methodologies and reference to peer-reviewed research, regulatory guidelines, and test data.

Addressing defenses

Automakers will raise several common defenses:

Driver responsibility

Defendants will argue that AEB is merely a supplement, not a substitute for driver attentiveness. Plaintiffs should counter that while the driver bears responsibility, the manufacturer promised a system that would intervene in precisely the type of crash that occurred. Consumers are entitled to rely on advertised safety features.

System limitations disclosed

Manufacturers may point to fine-print disclaimers. Plaintiffs should emphasize that these are buried, contradictory to marketing claims, and insufficient under products liability law. A hidden disclaimer does not absolve the manufacturer from selling an unreasonably dangerous product.

State of the art

Defendants may claim the system reflected the best technology available. Plaintiffs should rebut with evidence of contemporaneous competitor systems and industry testing demonstrating superior performance.

Unforeseeable scenario

Automakers may argue the crash scenario was unusual. Plaintiffs should show that pedestrian-, cyclist-, or stopped-vehicle crashes are among the most foreseeable and dangerous risks on the road.

Jury themes and storytelling

To prevail, plaintiffs’ counsel must frame the case in terms that resonate with jurors:

Broken promises: The automaker promised safety, but its technology betrayed the consumer.

Profits over safety: The company had safer alternatives but chose not to implement them to save money.

Preventable tragedy: Had the system worked as advertised, the plaintiff would be alive or uninjured today.

Trust and accountability: When corporations profit from promoting advanced safety, they must be held accountable when that safety fails.

Visual storytelling is powerful. Use crash reconstructions, system performance comparisons, and demonstrative videos showing how the crash could have been avoided with effective AEB.

Practical considerations

Jurisdiction and venue

Choose a jurisdiction with favorable products liability law and openness to cutting-edge technology cases. Some states require proof of a feasible safer alternative, while others, like California, follow consumer expectation standards.

Damages

Collision mitigation failures often involve catastrophic injuries or deaths, supporting claims for substantial compensatory damages. Punitive damages may be appropriate where the manufacturer knowingly concealed defects.

Coordination with other plaintiffs

These cases are emerging nationwide. Coordination with other attorneys, sharing experts, and pooling resources may strengthen each individual case and apply collective pressure on manufacturers. Membership in the Attorneys Information Exchange Group is a must.

Looking ahead: The future of collision mitigation litigation

As vehicles increasingly rely on automation, litigation over collision mitigation systems will only grow. Next-generation systems will use more sensors, artificial intelligence, and over-the-air updates. Each advancement brings new potential defects and new opportunities for plaintiffs’ counsel to enforce accountability.

Regulatory pressure is mounting as well. NHTSA announced rules mandating AEB in new vehicles by 2029 (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 127, Docket No. NHTSA-2023-0021), but the rulemaking process lags far behind technological capabilities. Plaintiffs’ attorneys therefore play a vital role in bridging the gap, ensuring that automakers who fail to provide effective safety systems face real consequences in court.

Conclusion

Products liability litigation involving collision mitigation systems is at the forefront of automotive safety law. These cases require mastery of complex technology, strategic discovery, and persuasive storytelling. At their core, however, they are about accountability. Automakers market life-saving systems but too often deliver half-measures that fail when lives are on the line. By aggressively prosecuting these cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys not only achieve justice for their clients but also drive systemic change – pushing manufacturers to prioritize safety over profit and ensuring that the promise of modern technology truly delivers.