Lost in the discussion of bondholders, dealers and layoffs is the effect of bankruptcy filings on product liability suits against GM and Chrysler, typically launched by victims of automobile accidents who claim that they would have been less injured than they were if only their vehicle had been "correctly designed." Thousands of such suits are pending at any one time -- either our auto designers are remarkably inept or this kind of liability is remarkably open-ended and lawless (guess which option I choose?). The Washington Times reports that plaintiffs' lawyers are outraged that their clients must now compete for the few cents on each dollar that unsecured creditors get.
GM and Chrysler Product Liability Plaintiffs
Related Entries:
- California rejects tertiary asbestos liability in O'Neill v. Crane
- First Circuit upholds $1.5M table-saw verdict
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Texas Supreme Court finishes off Garza v. Merck
- Around the web, August 26
- New York judges more likely to acquit than juries
- Around the web, July 12
- Insurers and Toyota sudden acceleration
- What media bias?
- Around the web, June 16
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Around the web, May 23
- Gameshow justice: Godwin v. Electrolux Home Prods.
- Refutation of Toyota sudden acceleration hysteria doesn't stop Toyota sudden acceleration litigation
- Viscusi: "Does Product Liability Make Us Safer?"
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



