When a driver makes a mistake behind the wheel and a defective vehicle component makes the resulting injuries worse, both the driver and the manufacturer can be held responsible, and the financial award is split between them based on each party's share of fault and state laws. That rule traces back to the 1978 California Supreme Court decision in Daly v. General Motors Corp., 20 Cal.3d 725, which extended comparative fault principles to strict products liability cases. Before Daly, plaintiffs and defendants in product defect cases were caught in an all-or-nothing system: either the manufacturer was fully liable, or any negligence by the driver was treated as a complete bar to recovery. After Daly, juries can apportion responsibility between a driver's error and a manufacturer's defective product, and the injured party's recovery is reduced by their own percentage of fault rather than eliminated entirely.

The decision has shaped how courts handle "crashworthiness" cases ever since: claims where a vehicle didn't cause the crash but failed to protect occupants the way it should have. Below is what the case actually said, how the rule works in practice, and what it means if you were injured in a crash involving a defective vehicle. For a broader overview of product liability law, the basic claim categories haven't changed much since Daly. What Daly changed was how fault gets split.

How Do Driver Negligence and Auto Defects Interact?

Historically, driver mistakes and product defects sat in separate legal silos. When a driver speeds, runs a red light, or drives under the influence, the legal framework is negligence: a failure to exercise reasonable care. Product defects fall under strict products liability, which holds a manufacturer financially responsible for releasing an unreasonably dangerous product into the market, regardless of how careful the manufacturer was during design or assembly. If the product is defective and the defect causes injury during a reasonably foreseeable use, the manufacturer can be held liable.

For years, courts debated whether a negligent driver should be allowed to sue an automaker under strict liability when the driver's own conduct contributed to the crash. Manufacturers argued that if a driver caused the initial collision, the automaker should not be liable for the resulting injuries at all. Daly v. GM addressed that clash directly and changed how product defect cases are tried.

What Is the Background of Daly v. General Motors?

Kirk Daly, a 36-year-old attorney, was driving his Opel southbound on the Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles in the early hours of October 31, 1970. At a speed of 50 to 70 miles per hour, the Opel struck a metal divider fence on the side of the highway. The vehicle spun counterclockwise after the initial impact, the driver's-side door came open, and Daly was ejected from the car. He died from head injuries sustained in the ejection. The parties agreed that if Daly had remained inside the vehicle, his injuries would likely have been substantially less severe.

Daly's widow and three minor children sued General Motors and the rest of the Opel's distribution chain under a strict products liability theory. Their argument was that the door latch was defectively designed. Specifically, the exposed push button on the exterior door handle could be depressed by a protruding object during impact, allowing the door to fly open. Their experts testified that other door latch designs available at the time would have kept the door closed.

GM responded by introducing evidence that the Opel was equipped with a shoulder-harness seat belt and a door lock, that Daly used neither, that the owner's manual warned to use both "for accident security," and that Daly had been drinking before the crash. The trial court admitted the intoxication evidence for the limited purpose of showing whether Daly had used the car's safety equipment. The jury returned a verdict for GM, and Daly's family appealed.

How Does Strict Liability Apply to Car Manufacturers?

Before the Daly decision, courts in California treated strict liability as an absolute doctrine. Traditional negligence defenses, including contributory negligence that could bar a plaintiff's recovery entirely, did not fit cleanly into strict liability claims against manufacturers.

Automakers have a legal duty to design and produce vehicles that meet the standard of "crashworthiness." Courts recognize that collisions are a foreseeable reality of driving. A car can't realistically prevent every crash, but a vehicle must provide a reasonable level of occupant protection when one occurs. Common crashworthiness defects in modern vehicles include:

• Seat belts that unlatch, retract too late, or tear under load
• Airbags that fail to deploy, deploy late, or deploy with excessive force
• Door latches that open during a side or rollover impact
• Weak roof pillars that crush occupants in a rollover
• Fuel system designs that rupture and ignite on impact
• Tire defects, including tread separation and sidewall failures
• Defective steering, braking, or electronic stability systems

When a safety feature fails because of a flawed design or a manufacturing error, the automaker can be held strictly liable for the resulting "enhanced injuries." These are the additional harms a victim suffered because the safety system didn't work as intended, beyond the injuries they would have sustained in a normal crash. For a deeper look at how these claims are built, common product liability claims cover the main categories and what each one requires.

How Did Daly v. GM Change Strict Liability?

The California Supreme Court reversed the trial court's verdict for GM. The court held that the intoxication and nonuse-of-safety-equipment evidence had been admitted in a way that prejudiced the jury, and that the trial court's framing of those issues as a "product misuse" defense was effectively a back-door way of letting contributory negligence bar the entire claim, exactly what California's strict liability rules were meant to prevent.

But the court didn't stop at reversing. It used the case to announce a broader rule: comparative fault principles, which the California Supreme Court had adopted for negligence claims three years earlier in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., now applied to strict products liability cases as well. A jury could consider a plaintiff's own conduct, but only as a percentage reduction in damages, not as a complete bar to recovery.

Why Fault Apportionment Matters

After Daly, a jury can examine the full sequence of events rather than the crash and the defect in isolation. The jury assesses how much the defective product contributed to the enhanced injuries, how much the plaintiff's own conduct contributed to the outcome, and assigns each party a percentage of fault. The result is a system that holds manufacturers accountable for unsafe products while also accounting for a driver's own role in their injuries. Comparative, contributory, and pure negligence rules work differently from state to state, and the rule that applies depends on where the crash happened.

Impact on Compensation Recovery

The plaintiff's recovery is directly tied to their percentage of blame. If a jury determines an automaker is 75% responsible for a victim's enhanced injuries because of a failed airbag, and the driver is 25% responsible because they were speeding at the time of the crash, the driver's total award is reduced by 25%. The approach holds automakers accountable for putting dangerous products on the road without giving negligent drivers complete immunity from their own conduct.

Can You Still Recover Damages If You Were Partially at Fault?

Yes. Under the rule established in Daly and adopted in some form by most states, you can pursue financial recovery for enhanced injuries even if a driving error contributed to the crash. The exact rules depend on the negligence law of the state where the accident happened.

States generally follow one of three approaches:

• Pure comparative negligence. A driver can recover even if they were mostly at fault. Recovery is simply reduced by their percentage. A driver found 90% at fault can still recover 10% of their damages from the manufacturer. A small number of states apply this rule.
• Modified comparative negligence. Recovery is allowed only if the driver's fault is below a set threshold, either 50% or 51% depending on the state. Above that, recovery is barred. Most states fall into this category. A subset of states applies a separate comparative responsibility rule specifically to product liability claims that differs from the general negligence rule, so the framework that governs your case may turn on the type of claim, not just the state.
• Contributory negligence. Any fault on the driver's part bars recovery entirely. Only a handful of jurisdictions still follow this rule.

Because the rules vary so much, proving negligence in a car accident, and figuring out how it interacts with a manufacturer's product defect, is a state-specific exercise.

What Evidence Is Needed to Prove Enhanced Injuries?

Winning a personal injury lawsuit that involves both driver error and an automotive defect is a demanding process. Automakers have large legal teams whose job is to fight these claims and shift blame to the driver. The injured party has to show that a specific defect caused identifiable harm beyond what the underlying crash would have caused. Building an enhanced-injury claim against an automaker typically requires:

• A complete accident reconstruction report identifying the crash forces involved
• The vehicle itself, preserved without further damage or modification
• Event data recorder ("black box") downloads showing pre-impact speed, braking, and crash forces
• Medical records from emergency response through ongoing treatment
• Biomechanical analysis isolating which injuries came from the crash versus the defect
• Comparative design evidence showing safer alternatives existed at the time of manufacture
• The vehicle's recall history and any prior complaints to NHTSA
• Compliance or non-compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Accident Reconstruction and Expert Testimony

Accident reconstruction engineers evaluate the crash scene, analyze vehicle crush damage, and calculate the physical forces in the collision. Their work establishes what should have happened to occupants if the vehicle had performed properly. Expert witnesses in product liability cases often include both reconstruction engineers and product specialists, the latter sometimes appearing as product specialists serving as expert witnesses to address specific component failures.

Medical Records and Biomechanics

Biomechanical engineers and medical specialists separate the injuries caused by the initial crash from the injuries directly caused by the vehicle's failure. If a driver rear-ends a stopped truck (clearly a driver error) but the seat belt mechanism fails on impact and the driver strikes the windshield, experts have to isolate the head trauma as the enhanced injury attributable to the defect.

When Can You Sue a Manufacturer for a Defect?

A product liability claim generally requires showing the product was defective when it left the manufacturer, that the defect caused the injuries, and that the product was being used in a reasonably foreseeable way at the time. Defects come in three forms: design defects (the product is dangerous by design even when made correctly), manufacturing defects (the product departed from its intended design during assembly), and warning defects (the manufacturer failed to warn of a non-obvious risk). The specific elements and deadlines vary by state. When you can sue for a manufacturing defect covers what the claim looks like in practice.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Daly v. GM still apply outside California?

Daly is binding precedent only in California, but courts in many other states have adopted similar reasoning when deciding whether to apply comparative fault to strict products liability claims. Most states now allow some form of fault apportionment in product defect cases, though the specific rules vary. A handful of states still treat strict liability and comparative negligence as separate doctrines that don't mix. The applicable rule depends on where the crash happened.

What is a "crashworthiness" claim?

A crashworthiness claim alleges that a vehicle didn't cause the underlying accident, but it failed to protect occupants from injuries the way a reasonably designed vehicle would have. Common examples include defective seat belts, airbags that fail to deploy, fuel systems that rupture and ignite, weak roof structures that collapse in a rollover, and door latches that open during impact. The claim is for "enhanced injuries," meaning the harm beyond what the crash itself would have caused.

Can I sue the automaker if I caused the crash?

Yes, in most states. Daly v. GM and the cases that followed it allow injured drivers to bring a defective product claim against an automaker even when the driver's own negligence triggered the crash. The driver's percentage of fault reduces the recovery rather than eliminating it. In pure comparative negligence states, a driver can recover even if they were mostly at fault. In modified comparative states, recovery is barred above a 50% or 51% fault threshold.

How long do I have to file a product defect claim?

Statutes of limitations for product liability claims vary widely by state, typically ranging from two to four years from the date of injury. Some states apply a separate "statute of repose" that bars claims filed more than a set number of years after the product was first sold, regardless of when the injury occurred. Discovery rules can extend the deadline when the defect wasn't immediately apparent. Confirm the applicable deadline with an attorney early.

Call Brandon J. Broderick For Legal Help

Cases against auto manufacturers are unlike standard car accident claims. They require accident reconstruction experts, biomechanical engineers, and the resources to litigate against in-house legal teams that defend these claims for a living. Our firm handles product liability and crashworthiness claims involving defective seat belts, airbags, door latches, fuel systems, and other safety equipment.

If you or a family member suffered serious injuries in a crash and you suspect a vehicle defect made the injuries worse, contact our team for a free case review. If we don't win, you don't pay.