Plaintiff was driving a 1963 vehicle equipped with a part known as a limited slip differential, which caused the plaintiff to lose control of his vehicle as he encountered a wet road surface.


His car crossed the median strip and ran into another vehicle. The collision left the plaintiff permanently paralyzed. Defendant failed to warn or instruct car users who bought this option that the limited slip differential had significantly different and dangerous effects on vehicle handling from those of a conventional differential. It was also maintained that the option was useless and dangerous at normal cruising speeds. Discovery established that one of defendant’s own test engineers had told defendant this, but that defendant never tested the effect of the option on vehicle handling.

About the Author: James Swartz
Mr. Swartz, our Managing and Principal Attorney at Swartz & Swartz P.C., is a nationally recognized and respected trial attorney as well as consumer advocate. His practice focuses on cases involving negligence, torts, products liability, medical malpractice, wrongful death, and other claims involving catastrophic injuries.

Keep Reading

Want more? Here are some other blog posts you might be interested in.