Collision Avoidance System Lawsuit

A collision avoidance system is a technology or group of technologies in a vehicle meant to lessen the chance of accidents. Cars and trucks may use tech like artificial intelligence (AI), RADAR, LiDAR, and cameras to respond to dangerous situations on the road. When working properly, CAS can avoid or reduce injuries.

When a CAS fails to operate properly or is simply missing, drivers, pedestrians and others face the risk of serious injury. Failures may occur for different reasons, including:

• The CAS malfunctioned
• The manufacturer did not equip the vehicle with the CAS
• The purchaser elected to not to equip the vehicle with CAS

The 1980s and 1990s saw the implementation of early collision avoidance systems, like laser-guided adaptive cruise control. The past decade has seen numerous developments in the field. For example, in 2016, the federal government announced a commitment to making automatic emergency braking (AEB) a standard feature of passenger vehicles and light trucks. In 2023, AEB and other technologies were standard in more than 90% of new cars, trucks and SUVs.

People may hear collision avoidance systems referred to by different names. Other terms for it include crash avoidance technology (CAT), advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), and collision mitigation systems.

What are the main types of collision avoidance technology?

In recent years, the types of collision avoidance technologies available have increased. They may come as a standard part of a new car, but may also be optional factory equipment. Aftermarket add-ons are also available. Examples of collision avoidance technologies include:

• Adaptive cruise control: This technology uses sensors to adjust cruise control speeds to keep a safe distance from vehicles ahead of the equipped vehicle.
• Automatic emergency braking (AEB): AEB technology applies brakes based on feedback from sensors in the vehicle.
• Blind-spot warning (BSW): BSWs alert drivers to vehicles next to or behind them.
• Electronic stability control (ESC): ESC uses onboard computer monitors and sensors to apply brakes to help stabilize a vehicle when it loses traction.
• Front-collision warning (FCW): FCWs use sensors to alert drivers to obstacles in the roadway, like a slow or stopped car.
• Lane departure warning (LDW): LDW technology detects lines on the road and triggers alerts when a driver is in danger of leaving the lane.
• Lane keep assist: This technology uses sensors to alert drivers drifting out of their lane. If a driver does not take action, the feature may steer the car back into its lane.
• Parking assist: This uses rear-view camera feedback and sensors to allow vehicles to steer themselves while drivers control the speed.

This is not an exhaustive list. Many manufacturers also have their own proprietary names for these systems. Manufacturers continue to innovate and bring new CAT to the market. For example, fully autonomous self-driving technology is getting increasingly closer to being available in mainstream vehicles.

In cases of an accident involving the failure of a CAT, the vehicle manufacturer may be at fault. It is also possible that the driver of the car with CAT may be at fault. In general, who is at fault can be divided into three categories:

• Third-party fault due to failure to equip: A manufacturer may be at fault if they failed to equip a certain technology that should have been a part of the vehicle.
• Third-party fault due to failure to function: A manufacturer may be at fault when a technology fails to function as it is supposed to. For example, legal claims against manufacturers have alleged AEBs failed to activate and prevent tractor-trailers from colliding with lines of vehicles stopped on the interstate.

Fault in cases involving CAT will be based on the specific facts of a case. Product liability and vehicle defect lawyers with experience can determine fault through their analysis of crash situations.

Who can be harmed in accidents caused by collision avoidance systems?

When a collision avoidance system fails, the damage can be wide-ranging. An accident may injure:

• People driving the car with the CAS failure
• People driving other cars that the CAS failure vehicle collides with
• Passengers of either vehicle
• Pedestrians, cyclists, and bystanders

All of these people may have legal claims if they are injured by a vehicle with a CAS failure. If you have been significantly injured by a vehicle crash and suspect a failure of CAS, consider reaching out to transportation attorneys at Motley Rice.

Motley Rice lawyers have worked in some of the most important cases for victims in vehicle defect and product liability cases. We represent people in several practice areas with personal injury, product liability, wrongful death and economic loss class action claims.

Our attorneys have extensive experience litigating cases involving vehicle defects. Motley Rice co-founder Joe Rice holds leadership positions in the GM ignition switch defect litigation and the Volkswagen emissions fraud litigation. Kevin Dean is a representative on the Personal Injury Tort Claimants Committee for the Takata Bankruptcy.

Read more on our transportation litigation experience.