Skip to main content


Product Liability Lawyer reviewing auto defect cases and lawsuits for injured clients and plaintiffs nationwide
Nationwide Success

Auto Recall Lawyer

Auto recalls in the United States each total in the millions of vehicles. The use of common interchangeable components and suppliers across model and brand lines inflate these auto recall numbers each year.

When defective seatbelts, airbags, fuel lines, transmissions, windows, tires or any other car parts are installed on millions of vehicles, the risk of roadway injuries and deaths increases dramatically.

When automakers fail to control their quality and provide basic safety features, federal oversight by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and product liability attorneys can help mitigate the losses and damages. The majority of injuries and deaths on the road are preventable, yet faulty auto design and manufacturing defects are still not always addressed in a timely fashion.

Many accident victims are left with huge medical expenses, lost wages, physical and emotional pain and suffering, and, in many cases, permanent injuries.

Joe Lyon is a highly-rated Auto Defect Lawyer and experienced Auto Recall attorney, well-versed in the economic impact, injuries and death have on a victim’s life and family. 

Common Issues Affecting Auto Recalls

Who Issues Auto Recalls?

For financial reasons, automakers may be reluctant to recall their products, even when they know safety risks exist. A safety auto recall is an admission of a product flaw, and a company’s reputation for quality and safety are on the line. If any defect is not promptly addressed, however, the safety of any number of drivers and passengers could be jeopardized.

If a car or truck fails to meet safety specifications dictated by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards—anything from windshield defrosting systems to air bags—it can lead to recalls, either initiated by a specific manufacturer, or by recommendations from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Automakers Regularly Issuing Auto Recalls

Every manufacturer in the auto industry has issued recalls for dangerous products at some point in their history. Some auto defects clearly create more road hazards than others, though any defective car or truck may increase the risk of accident and injury. Companies who have been targeted in injury and product liability lawsuits include the following:

Common Injuries in Auto Recall Accidents

A large portion of auto-related injuries in Ohio are considered preventable. Accidents and subsequent injuries may be the result of negligent manufacturing or design of an automobile. Carmakers and component suppliers may be held liable if a defect leads to an injury. Some common injuries include the following:

  1. Fiat Chrysler led most automakers in 2017 recalls with nearly 4 million vehicles recalled for defective roll sensors and airbag deployment, parking rollaway defects, and faulty oil cooler lines. Some affected models included Ram pickup trucks, Dodge Charger, and the Challenger SRT Hellcat. Five different cars were said to have an alternator fire risk: The Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger, Challenger, Durango and Jeep Grand Cherokee. An airbag recall was issued for 538,000 Dodge Journey crossovers for a faulty wiring that could lead to accidental airbag deployment.
  2. Of Honda’s 3.3 million recalled cars in 2017, more than 1.1 million were Accords that were known to have a fire risk involving the battery and electric shorts. Thousands of 2011-2017 Honda Odyssey minivans were recalled for second-row seats that may not latch securely, increasing the risk of passenger injury.
  3. Ford recalled 1.1 million 2015-2017 F-Series trucks for potential bent or kinked door actuator cables and door latches that may freeze and lead to safety concerns.
  4. Seat belt linkage problems caused Hyundai to recall nearly a million 2011-2014 Sonatas and 2011-2015 Sonata Hybrids. In event of collisions, both front seat belts may detach from the anchor and increase the chance of occupant injury. Hyundai also issued recalls for Sonata and Santa Fe Sport models because of manufacturing errors that could limit oil delivery and lead to a seized engine and a road safety hazard while on the road.
  5. BMW recalled over 672,000 3-Series models because of a potential short circuit and fire risk. BMW also recalled 2014-2018 BMW i3 electric cars because drivers may be at higher risk of neck injury in the event of a frontal crash.
  6. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened a 2017 investigation into Volkswagen, Porsche and Audi models due to fuel leaks from flanges made by German automotive supplier Continental Automotive Systems Inc., that could potentially cause fires.
  7. Tesla recalled thousands of Model S and Model X models for both a parking brake issue and improperly adjusted cables in seat backs.
  8. Hyundai warned SUV owners to park outdoors because an electrical computer short may cause vehicles to catch fire. The automaker recalled about 180,000 Tucson SUVs from 2019 through 2021. The company says corrosion can cause a short circuit in defective anti-lock brake circuit boards that can cause a fire even if engines are turned off. Hyundai says some engine fires caused by the problem have been reported but no injuries. Kia recalled more than 9,000 Stinger sports cars for a similar problem. The recalls are the latest engine fire problems that have plagued the automakers.

BMW Recall

BMW recalled 1.6 million cars worldwide due to possible fluid leaks that may result in a fire. The defect includes some BMW diesel vehicles, noting that coolant can leak from the exhaust gas recirculation module, part of the emissions reduction system. The coolant leaks at high temperatures may lead to a car fire.

The further recall is in addition to 480,000 BMW vehicles in Asia and Europe after fires were reported in South Korea. The recall covers vehicles made between 2010 and 2017. Over 54,000 vehicles could be affected in the U.S and Canada, posing a fire risk.

When a negligent automaker like BMW is responsible for an accident or fire that leads to injury, the carmaker may be liable for all damages, and plaintiffs may seek compensation for property damages, medical costs, lost wages, and pain and suffering.

Defective design product liability cases arise not because a mistake was made during the manufacturing process, but rather the original design of the product is unreasonably dangerous.

A “risk benefit analysis” is used to determine whether safer/less expensive alternative designs were available to the manufacturer. Federal regulations set minimum standards for the design of many consumer products, and preemption defenses may preclude liability in some situations if the manufacturer follows and obtains federal approval for a product.

Automotive recalls and product liability cases are usually a result of a defective design. Common cases include Brake Recalls, defective seat belt buckles, automotive software defects, airbag defects, and several other safety issues.

Car manufacturers like BMW need to be held accountable so American consumers are protected on the roadways. If a safety issue exists and an injury is sustained, contact an Ohio auto recall lawyer to review the case.

When automakers like BMW fail to control quality, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and product liability attorneys can issue recalls and file lawsuits to hold companies responsible. The majority of road injuries are preventable, particularly with auto defects. Contact an Ohio auto recall lawyer to discuss the legal options available.

Auto Recall Settlements

If a negligent automaker or component manufacturer is responsible for an accident that leads to injury, the negligent party may be liable for all damages and economic loss that results. The injured party may be entitled to compensation for property damages, medical costs (past and future), lost wages, loss of future earning potential, and pain and suffering.

Unfortunately, man auto recalls are issued too late—long after a particular defect leads to accidents and serious injuries. Manufacturers need to be held accountable for their actions, and encouraged to have the foresight and proper controls in place so American consumers are protected on the roadways.

Far too often, automakers will deny that a problem exists or ignore obvious safety concerns until they face enough pressure from victims and product liability legal teams.

photo of attorney Joe Lyon reviewing auto recall cases
A Voice for Those who have suffered 

Why are these cases important?

Many product liability cases have had a positive impact on public health and safety, and we have witnessed improved lives and future injuries prevented as companies are forced to remove products and change designs and warnings as a result of litigation.

voice icon

Give Yourself a Voice


Get Justice

Gain Recovery

Gain Recovery

Generate Awareness

Generate Awareness

Questions about Auto Recalls

How is an Automobile Defined as Defective?
Ohio Definition of Defective

A car or truck may be defective if it is unreasonably dangerous for its intended use. A legal cause of action can be based on several types of product defects. The following are Cincinnati product liability and strict liability claims available in Ohio and in most jurisdictions nationwide:

(1)  Manufacturing/ Construction Defect:

These issues arise where the automobile is released from the factory in a manner that deviates from the intended design or specifications. The defect can be a result of using the wrong materials, including the wrong or completely foreign materials.

As a result of the deviation, the product enters the market in an unreasonably dangerous condition and the consumer is exposed to or purchases a product that is defective. Any personal injuries or economic loss that arise from the the defect are compensable under Ohio product liability law.

(2) Defective design and/or formulation:

Defective design product liability cases arise not because a mistake was made during the manufacturing process, but rather the original design of the car is unreasonably dangerous. A “risk benefit analysis” is used to determine whether safer/less expensive alternative designs were available to the manufacturer.

Federal regulations set minimum standards for the design of many consumer products, and preemption defenses may preclude liability in some situations if the manufacturer follows and obtains federal approval for a product. Automotive recalls and product liability cases are usually a result of a defective design. Common cases include the Toyota Brake Recall, Chrysler Gen III seat belt buckle, lap belt only cases.

(3) Failure to warn or inadequate warning or instruction associated with the product:

All consumer products come with necessary and appropriate warnings and instructions for use. If the lack of a warning makes the product and use of the product unsafe, the manufacturer is liable for the failure to place the warning. 

(4) Misrepresentation:

The automobile fails to conform to a representation or warranty. Warranty claims are more common in commercial and economic loss cases than in personal injury cases. In many States, The Product Liability Act does not apply to cases with only economic loss, because the Commercial Code provides recourse for breach of warranty.

The warranty may be written or implied based upon the products intended purpose and merchantability. An example of a breach of warranty cases are cases involving automotive defects.

What cars are being recalled?

Each month more defective automobiles are recalled due to the risk of driver injury. To keep up with the latest recalls, or to look up car recalls, visit government auto recall web sites


How do you prove design defects?

Risks:  The following factors are considered under Ohio law when determining the risks associated with the design of a product:  (1) the magnitude of the risk of injury; (2) ordinary consumer awareness of the risk for injury; (3) the likelihood of causing injury; (4) the violation of a private or public standard; and (5) the consumer’s expectation of the performance of the product and level of danger. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (B) Product Defective in Design or Formulation.

BenefitsThe following factors are considered under Ohio law when determining the benefits associated with product design: (1) the utility of the product; (2) availability of an alternative design; (3) the magnitude of risks associated with an alternative design. Ohio Revised Code 2307.5 (c)

Defenses for Defective Design(1) a pharmaceutical drug or medical device is not defective by design if it contains an adequate warning of an unavoidably unsafe aspect of the pharmaceutical or medical device; (2) the dangerous aspect is inherent to the product, recognizable, and cannot be eliminated without compromising the product’s usefulness; (3) a lack of a feasible alternative design. 2307.75 (d)(e)(f).

What is a manufacturing defect?
  • A manufacturing defect is based on a defect that occurred during the manufacturing process. Many auto companies have been involved in this kind of product liability lawsuits in recent years, due to defective airbags, software defects, tire failure, and other dangerous manufacturing errors.

    Most manufacturing defect cases are based on a products deviation from the intended specification, formula, performance standards, or design model. In such cases, it may be easy to determine the product did not comply with the intended design.

    The product may be recalled as a specific lot is identified as being non-compliant and defective. A product may be defective in manufacture or construction, materials and assembly, and a manufacturer or distributor may be subject to strict liability, even though it exercised all possible care.  Ohio Revised Code 2307.74.

    Manufacturing Defect Examples:

What is a failure to warn lawsuit?

In determining whether a product is defective due to inadequate warning or instruction, evidence must be presented to prove:

  • The manufacturer knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known about a risk
  • A reasonable manufacturer would have provided a warning of the risk
  • The manufacturer failed to provide the warning
  • The person was injured due to a lack of warning. The same elements apply whether the claim is based on a warning present during the marketing or post-sale warnings.

Defenses to Failure to Warn Claims(1) the risk was open and obvious or a matter of common knowledge; and (2) in cases of a pharmaceutical drug or medical device, the warning was provided to the prescribing physician (“Learned Intermediary Doctrine”).

Many pharmaceutical companies have been targeted in failure to warn lawsuits for either failing to place warnings on medication guides and packaging or failing to properly test their product before putting it to market.

who is responsible for vehicle recalls?

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) is responsible for car safety investigations and may request that a manufacturer issue a voluntary recall. Ultimately it is up to the manufacturers to recall defective cars and equipment when they pose a safety risk.

Your Right to Safety

Watch our Video About the Process

Defective products on the market present safety and health hazards for adults and children. Cheap and defective products may pose fire and burn risks; electrocution, strangulation and choking risks; and severe health risks. The manufacturers of consumer products have a duty to foresee potential injury and properly design and test products before they are released.

Companies must also properly warn consumers of any risks associated with their products. Any failure to protect consumers that results in accidents and injury can lead to lawsuits filed by plaintiffs and their Cincinnati product liability lawyer

Auto Defect Settlements

The Lyon Firm aggressively, professionally, and passionately advocates for injured individuals and families against companies due to a defective product or recalled product to obtain just compensation under the law. 



(Pikeville, Kentucky): Confidential settlement for Plaintiff who suffered spinal cord injury resulting in paraplegia due to defectively designed seat belt. Four passengers with three-point (lap/shoulder) belts walked away from the accident, and the only passenger wearing a two-point belt (lap only) suffered a debilitating spinal cord injury. The settlement assisted with home improvements to assist in daily living. GM entered federal bankruptcy during the process and no longer manufactures two-point lap belts for vehicles.