As technology and product innovation expand into new territory, breaking ground to appease a generation accustomed to instant, at-their-fingertips access to digital information, so too does products liability litigation. Some speculate the next “wave” of products liability litigation will stem from consumers’ use of communication devices and other electronic equipment while on the roadways, resulting in the “senseless and preventable destructive practice of distracted driving.” [PDF].

An article published recently by The New York Times as part of its “Driven to Distraction” series (which is worth checking out: try the “Gauging Your Distraction” game that has you attempt to respond to texts while changing lanes) explains that in spite of huge risks, technology giants and automakers are bringing Internet access – by way of what have been dubbed “infotainment systems” – to drivers’ dashboards. According to the article, one such system expected to be unveiled by Audi this fall allows drivers to access the Internet and pull up information as they drive. A notice reportedly will pop up that reads: “Please only use the online services when traffic conditions allow you to do so safely.” Although some automakers plan to restrict access to potentially distracting functions while the car is in drive, much of the responsibility in limiting use while driving will lie with drivers.

The issue of distracted driving is at the forefront, as there has been a government push to curb distracted driving dangers. Even Oprah has joined the cause. In terms of the scope of damages, The New York Times article cited a 2003 study by Harvard researchers, who estimated that motorists talking on cellphones caused 2,600 fatal accidents and 570,000 accidents involving injuries a year.

So how does this translate into product liability litigation? In its recently published “Client Alert,” the Micheal Best firm sets forth the three most likely product liability causes of action to be alleged against creators of these “distracting” products:

(1) Design Defect–when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided; (2) Inadequate Instructions or Warnings – an omission of a warning that renders the product not reasonably safe; and (3) Failure to Warn–the seller’s failure to provide a warning after the time of sale.

Numerous successful civil lawsuits have arisen against the distracted drivers themselves, including one settled here in South Carolina this month for $5 million by the insurer of a driver who, while talking on her cellphone, struck and killed two bicyclists. It is only a matter of time before a floodgate of litigation opens against the makers of these distraction-inducing products.