If you’re injured in a car fire, you can file a product liability claim to sue the manufacturer for compensation for your injuries.
Defective car parts and unsafe vehicle design can result in unexpected vehicle fires and explosions. If a car manufacturer failed to meet Florida’s safety requirements, they can be held liable. Contact us for a free consultation about suing for a vehicle fire.
What is a Vehicle or Car Fire?
A vehicle fire is defined as an uncontrolled burning involving any motor vehicle. Vehicle fires can produce bursts or explosions, but these explosions are a relatively rare occurrence.
In rare cases, an explosion or blast can occur if the vehicle fire travels into the vehicles gas tank and a large concentration of gasoline vapor ignites.
The vast majority of actual vehicle explosions are connected to contents or cargo in a vehicle, such as multiple gas cans or tanks of compressed flammable gases seated in the bed of a pick-up truck.
However, vehicle fires are common and are one of the primary causes of all fire-related property damage claims. Vehicle fires are commonly ignited by one of the following conditions:
- Ruptured or Damaged Fuel Lines
- Punctured Fuel Tank
- Excessive Oil Leaks (under-hood/within the engine compartment)
- Electrical Shorts (vehicle interior, carpet/upholstery)
- Hot Exhaust Components (can cause brush fires when parked on dry grass)
Most car fires are connected to a fuel leak and are ignited by hot exhaust pipes or other hot components inside the engine compartment. A fuel leak can also result from structural damage caused by a collision or by driving the vehicle over debris.
Car Fires and Product Liability
Automotive manufacturers can be held liable in cases where wiring shorts or fuel leaks occur as a result of defects. Defective circuit boards or fuel line fittings, though uncommon, have been known to ignite vehicle fires.
In June 2013, General Motors Co. (GM) issued a recall affecting nearly 480,000 SUVs after receiving 58 reports of fires caused by an electrical circuit board short in the driver’s side door.
11 minor injuries have been reported, and it is likely that GM will encounter a few personal injury claims from those vehicle owners. The SUVs included the 2006 Chevrolet Trailblazer EXT and GMC Envoy XL and 2006-2007 Chevrolet Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Buick Rainier, Saab 9-7X and Isuzu Ascender.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) advised:
“As a precaution, owners are advised to park outside until the remedy has been made… a fire could occur even while the vehicle is not in use.”
Historical Car Fire/Explosion Recalls
Automotive recall history dates back to the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, giving the government authority to recall unsafe vehicles. A particularly infamous fire/explosion-related defect involves Ford Motor Company’s 1978 recall of its then-popular Pinto. According to bankrate.com:
“The issue involved a lack of reinforcement between the Pinto’s fuel tank and the bolts in its rear differential. Critics alleged that this design flaw made the gas tank susceptible to becoming pierced by the bolts and catching fire in a rear-end collision.”
The recall followed the 1977 release of an article by Mother Jones magazine, entitled Pinto Madness, which presented evidence behind Ford’s decision and efforts to pay the judgments brought on by burn victim lawsuits, rather than issuing a recall, based solely on the monetary costs involved. The topic was the subject of heated controversy for several years and Ford suffered significant damage to its brand as a result.
The controversy of the Ford Pinto recall set the stage for automakers to err on the side of caution, as many have opted for prompt safety recalls upon the mere hint of complaints of “burning” or “smoldering”.
References:
