The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, commonly known as NHTSA, an agency of the United States Department of Transportation, enacted an initial set of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, or FMVSS, in the late 1960s. NHTSA has amended and updated the FMVSS, and has added new standards to the original group of FMVSS, since that time. Every new motor vehicle sold in the United States is required to comply with all of the FMVSS that are applicable to that type of vehicle. (Due to differences in the configurations of passenger cars and trucks, certain of the FMVSS are limited in their application to one type of vehicle or the other.) In an automotive products liability case, a legal action in which a plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the manufacturer or seller of a motor vehicle for death, personal injury, or property damage caused by an alleged defect in the design or manufacture of the vehicle or by the failure to warn of a danger inherent in its use and operation, the FMVSS sometimes play a role in determining the outcome of the dispute between the parties.
A plaintiff in an automotive products liability action is generally required to prove that a motor vehicle as sold contained a defect in its design, in the way in which it was manufactured or assembled, or in the failure to warn of a risk inherent in its operation that created an unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or property damage when the vehicle was used for its intended purpose and that the defect caused an accident or similar incident, such as a vehicle fire, that resulted in the loss or damage for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. Because proof of the existence of such conditions does not involve passing judgment on the conduct of the manufacturer, but merely on the status of the vehicle as sold, the plaintiff in such a case can ordinarily recover only his or her actual damages, which can include economic losses and damages for non-economic losses based on the jury's determination of the dollar value of the pain and suffering resulting from the accident. Sometimes, though, the manufacturer's conduct in dealing with the alleged vehicle defect becomes an issue in the case, and the plaintiff may then attempt to recover punitive damages in addition to the actual damages suffered.
Possession of a valid driver's license, while a prerequisite for the legal operation of a car or truck on the public roads, is clearly not a prerequisite for being physically capable of driving a vehicle. As a result, a great many motor vehicles in the United States are driven by persons not legally licensed to do so. Such unlicensed operations, and the vehicular accidents that inevitably result from them, raise a number of issues in the area of motor vehicle insurance.
The basic elements of proof that a plaintiff has to establish in a products liability action against a manufacturer or seller of a motor vehicle are that the vehicle as sold contained a defect that created an unreasonable risk of death, personal injury, or property damage when the vehicle was used for its intended purpose and that the defect caused an accident or similar incident, such as a vehicle fire, that resulted in the damage or loss for which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. Vehicle defects for purposes of establishing liability in such a case include shortcomings in the design of a vehicle, errors in the manufacture of its component parts or in their assembly into a complete car or truck, and failure to warn the purchaser or operator of risks inherent in the use and operation of the vehicle. Safety-related recall campaigns covering a vehicle involved in such an action can have an effect on the outcome of the dispute between the parties.
State legislatures have authorized motorist insurance companies to exclude coverage, including uninsured motorist coverage, for any damages from an intentional act in their policies. Public policy prohibits insurance coverage for intentional acts because a person should pay for his or her intentional injury to another person. Further, the courts have held that injuries caused by an intentional act are not caused by "accident."
