In Fitzpatrick v Currie , Brian Fitzpatrick was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Bria Currie, when during the course of an accident, the passenger-side air-bag deployed and caused injuries to Fitzpatrick's face and right eye.
His father inspected and photographed the air-bag while the car was at the tow yard, claimed that the bag's underside was torn, but neglected to take a picture of that slit. (Before the lawsuit was filed, the vehicle was destroyed.)
Fitzpatrick later alleged that the air bag was defectively manufactured, the unit deployed with "excessive force," and that because of the tear, gas was released, "causing trauma and chemical burns to his face and eyes."
When the Otsego County Supreme Court granted Subaru's request to dismiss the case, Fitzpatrick appealed to the Appellate Division, Third Department.
In order to establish a products liability claim, Fitzpatrick needed to prove that the cause of his injuries was due to an air bag that was defectively manufactured, or the product presented an "unreasonable risk of harm" due to a defective design.
The AD3 concluded that Subaru established its entitlement to dismissal by showing there were no defects in either the manufacturing or design phases. The company's expert testified that the bag properly inflated and Fitzpatrick's injuries were "consistent with a properly deployed air bag." As to Fitzpatrick's claim that the air bag was excessively powerful, the expert explained that the force utilized was consistent with government regulations at the time the vehicle was manufactured.
Because Fitzpatrick was unable to refute those arguments to the court's satisfaction, the AD3 took the wind out of that case, fast.
To download a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Fitzpatrick v Currie