—
A Mazda CX-5 lawsuit alleges a Pennsylvania crash was not only caused by a driver-assist system the vehicle had, but the crash also allegedly occurred because the vehicle lacked certain driver-assist features.
On July 21, 2023, James Folsom was driving a 2017 Mazda CX-5 in the right lane of northbound I-79 in Butler County, Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff Timothy Smith was riding his 2012 Harley Davidson Electra Glide in the left lane of northbound I-79 when the Mazda driver traveled from the right lane into the left lane. The Mazda hit the Harley and caused it to crash.
The lawsuit not only blames the Mazda driver, but it also blames Mazda for the crash because the CX-5 was equipped with a Blind Spot Monitoring system that allegedly failed to warn Mazda driver James Folsom “that there was a motor vehicle already present in the left-hand lane of I-79.”
The plaintiff blames not only Mazda, but also the Mazda dealer which sold the vehicle and several people who “designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, marketed, distributed and sold the subject Mazda.”
Because the Mazda driver drove into the motorcycle, the lawsuit asserts the Mazda was “defectively designed and manufactured because it lacked necessary technologically feasible safety systems,” including a reliable Blind Spot Monitoring system.
However, a Blind Spot Monitoring system does not make a vehicle autonomous because the system is a driver assistance feature. The owner’s manual for the CX-5 says as much and warns drivers of the limitations of the system.
According to Mazda: “Always check the surrounding area visually before making an actual lane change.”
“The system is only designed to assist you in checking for vehicles at your rear when making a lane change. Due to certain limitations with the operation of this system, the Blind Spot Monitoring (BSM) warning indicator light, the warning sound and the warning screen indicator display may not activate or they might be delayed even though a vehicle is in an adjacent driving lane. Always make it your responsibility as a driver to check the rear.” — Mazda CX-5 owner’s manual
Several pages warn Mazda drivers of the system limitations and conditions that could cause the system to fail.
But not only does the lawsuit blame Mazda for a system the vehicle has, the plaintiff sued over driver assistance systems the vehicle does not have.
The plaintiff claims the vehicle was defective simply because it was not equipped with a Lane-Keep Assist system and a Lane Departure Warning system. The lawsuit complains Mazda could have provided those systems in the 2017 CX-5 but didn’t.
But this is how every vehicle in the country is manufactured and sold. If a buyer wants more driver assistance systems, they can pay more for the vehicle to receive additional features.
However, the lawsuit says the lack of those features made the Mazda CX-5 defective and caused the crash into the motorcycle.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct and products, Plaintiff, Timothy Smith suffered serious, severe, disabling, and catastrophic injuries….” — Mazda Blind Spot Monitoring lawsuit
The Mazda CX-5 lawsuit was filed in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County: Smith v. Folsom, and Mazda Motor Corporation, et al.