by Lawsuit Against Kia Over Carnival Minivan Sliding Doors
Kia has asked a U.S. federal court to dismiss a class-action lawsuit related to the sliding doors of its Carnival minivan. The automaker argues that the lawsuit is based on hypothetical fears rather than actual facts of harm, as the plaintiffs have not suffered any injuries. The complaint concerns Carnival models from the 2022-2023 model years.
The main claims of the plaintiffs, the married couple Rachel and Andrew Langerhans, are:
Recall and Plaintiffs’ Arguments
Following a series of consumer complaints and reports of at least nine injuries, Kia initiated a recall of 2022-2023 Carnivals in early 2023. The recall campaign involved updating the vehicle’s software to add warning signals when the doors open and close.
However, the lawsuit filed after this recall alleges that Kia did not address the key issue – the level of force required to activate the pinch sensors in the doors. The plaintiffs believe that without resolving this fundamental issue, the doors, especially for children, remain dangerous. They are seeking over $5 million in compensation.
Kia’s Position
Kia categorically disagrees with the basis of the lawsuit. The company states that the plaintiffs merely “have concerns about the possibility of the doors closing on them or their children,” but do not provide facts of actual harm. In its motion to dismiss the case, Kia points out that it is unclear what specific damages, requiring compensation through the court, the plaintiffs currently have.
Furthermore, Kia emphasizes that any disputes regarding the effectiveness of the recall are speculative until the plaintiffs provide plausible facts that the defect in their vehicle persisted after the repair. The company also points to a legal obstacle: when purchasing the Carnival, the couple signed a mandatory arbitration agreement, which, in Kia’s opinion, prohibits them from resolving this matter in court. If the court finds this agreement valid, the case could be closed before being considered on its merits.
This litigation highlights an important question about where the line is drawn between a potential design risk that a manufacturer must eliminate and a hypothetical threat insufficient for a lawsuit. It also demonstrates how manufacturers can use technical legal tools, such as arbitration agreements, to defend against class-action lawsuits. The court’s decision could set a precedent for similar cases in the future, determining whether safety concerns alone, without actual incidents involving the specific plaintiffs, are sufficient for judicial review.
