Not every car crash is a driver’s fault. Sometimes the machine itself fails: an airbag that deploys with shrapnel, a tire that sheds its tread at 65 mph on the I-405, brakes that fade on a Santa Clarita grade. When a defective component causes or worsens a collision, victims have claims against the manufacturer — and car crash lawyers who handle auto defect cases know that the component tells the story. This guide covers the defects that most often injure California drivers and what victims should do about them.
The Components That Fail — and How They Hurt People
Airbags and Seat Belts
Airbag defects run in both directions: non-deployment in a frontal crash that leaves an occupant’s head to strike the wheel, and over-aggressive or rupturing inflators that turn a safety device into a projectile — the failure mode behind the largest recall in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) history. Seat belt failures — false latching, webbing tears, retractor failures — convert moderate collisions into ejection cases with traumatic brain injury (TBI) or fatal outcomes.
Tires
Tread separation is the classic tire defect: aged or poorly bonded tires delaminate at freeway speed, and the sudden loss of control on US-101 or the I-405 often ends in a rollover. Date codes, recall records, and the failed carcass itself are the core evidence, which is why the tire must never be discarded.
Brakes, Steering, and Acceleration Systems
Master cylinder failures, corroded brake lines, defective steering knuckles, and electronic throttle malfunctions remove the driver’s ability to avoid a crash at all. These cases lean heavily on the vehicle’s event data recorder, which can show pedal application and speed in the seconds before impact — hard data that trumps an insurer’s “driver error” narrative.
Seatbacks, Roofs, and Fuel Systems
Crashworthiness defects don’t cause the crash; they magnify it. Collapsing seatbacks in rear impacts, weak roof structures that crush in rollovers, and fuel systems that ignite after collision each add a layer of injury — frequently spinal cord injuries and burns — on top of what the original impact would have caused. California law lets victims hold the manufacturer strictly liable for that enhanced harm even when another driver started the sequence.
What California Law Gives Defect Victims
Strict product liability means a victim need not prove the automaker was careless — only that the component was defective and caused injury in foreseeable use. Comparative fault still applies: under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. of California (1975), a jury in the Los Angeles County Superior Court can split responsibility among the manufacturer, other motorists, and the victim, with the recovery adjusted accordingly rather than barred.
Damages cover the full sweep of economic and non-economic harm: surgeries and rehabilitation, lost earning capacity, pain, and diminished quality of life. Where corporate documents show a company shipped a component it knew was failing, punitive damages under California Civil Code § 3294 come into play. The deadline is unforgiving — two years for personal injury and wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 — and the practical deadline is shorter, because the defective part must be preserved before the vehicle is salvaged.
The First 30 Days Decide the Case
After a suspected defect crash anywhere in Los Angeles County — from Burbank to Long Beach — victims should keep the vehicle, photograph everything, obtain the CHP 555 traffic collision report or LAPD report, and check the VIN against NHTSA’s recall database. A car crash lawyer will then send preservation letters and get engineering experts to the vehicle before any teardown or repair contaminates the evidence. Acting fast also locks down maintenance records, purchase receipts, and prior repair invoices that establish the component was used and serviced as the manufacturer intended — a point defense engineers will otherwise attack.
Defective Vehicles and Drunk Drivers: When Both Are on the Hook
Defect cases and impaired-driving cases intersect more often than people expect. Picture a crash in Glendale: an intoxicated motorist runs a light — conduct chargeable under California Vehicle Code § 23152, or § 23153 when injury results — and the victim’s airbag fails to deploy. The drunk driver’s violation supports negligence per se under Evidence Code § 669, while the airbag manufacturer answers separately for the enhanced injuries. The criminal side proceeds on its own track, built on blood alcohol concentration (BAC) readings and chemical test results that the driver’s California DUI lawyer will be contesting in court and at the DMV hearing; the civil side pursues every liable party. That matters financially: even after Senate Bill 1107 raised minimum liability limits to $30,000/$60,000/$15,000 on January 1, 2025, an individual driver’s policy cannot pay for a lifetime of care, so the manufacturer claim — along with the victim’s own uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) and MedPay coverage — is often what actually funds recovery.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I find out if my car part was recalled?
Run your VIN through NHTSA’s free recall lookup and keep any recall notices you’ve received. An open recall on the failed component is powerful evidence, but a defect claim does not require one.
What if I already crashed — should I keep the wrecked car?
Yes. The vehicle and the failed component are the case. Tell your insurer in writing not to salvage it, and get a car crash lawyer involved before inspection or repair.
Can I sue both a drunk driver and a parts manufacturer in California?
Yes. California’s comparative fault system apportions responsibility among all defendants — the impaired driver for causing the crash and the manufacturer for injuries its defective component added — within the two-year window of Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1.
