What Constitutes A Product Defect?

Recently our office litigated a Product Liability case for over three years and tried it before a judge and jury in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The lawsuit alleged that Honda Motor Company of North America was liable for manufacturing a "Defective" Product, a 1988 Acura Integra with a five speed manual transmission. We alleged the vehicle was defective for failing to contain an inexpensive electronic "interlock" mechanism in the transmission. The device cost approximately $4.00 in 1988.
The plaintiff in the case was an employee of an Acura dealership working as a parts manager. The plaintiff was badly injured while conversing with a mechanic in the shop, attempting to repair a vehicle with a no-start condition. The mechanic reached into the vehicle while the car was in first gear,and turned the ignition attempting to start the vehicle. The car unexpectedly lurched forward striking the plaintiff in the right leg and causing serious injury. The plaintiff was represented by our office and received workers compensation benefits. We also sued Honda in Superior Court. The case was aggressively defended. Honda argued it was not required to install the interior lock device by law and that it chose not to install it as a design feature. The interior lock device does not permit the starter to engage unless the vehicle is in neutral or the clutch pedal is depressed to the floor thus removing the risk of the car inadvertently moving forward. The defendent also argued the absence of the device permitted a user to move the vehicle by turning the ignition even if the engine did not start. The jury did not buy Honda's argument.
The evidence and data showed that GM had been using interlocks in their cars and light trucks since 1969. Furthermore, both Ford and Chrysler utilized interlock devices as early as 1984. More importantly, major competitors of Honda, including Nissan & Toyota began using interlock devices prior to the model year 1988. Nonetheless, the defendent maintained that since an interlock was not required by law it was not culpable. The jury deliberated a short time and awarded a very substantial verdict to the plaintiff. We argued that under New Jersey law one must weigh the risk of someone being seriously injured against the utility of the product, in this case the Acura Integra without an interlock. The device was both technically and economically feasible.
On its face, the argument that the law did not require the device seemed meritorious. However, our product liability law is much more complex and multifactorial. If you have been injured by a defective product please contact The Law Office of Gary D. Ginsberg at 609-727-1991. We are located at The Atrium II, 3000 Atrium Way, Suite 101, Mt Laurel, New Jersey.