Todd Tracy | The Tracy Law Firm

E. Todd Tracy is a Board-Certified Texas attorney who has spent more than 38 years litigating vehicle crashworthiness cases and holding the automotive industry accountable for safety failures. Throughout his career, he has tried 179 crashworthiness cases against major domestic and international manufacturers and suppliers, including GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Ferrari, Mercedes-Benz, Paccar, Kenworth, TRW, Key Safety, Takata, Tokai Rika, Dorel Juvenile Group, and Graco. With a degree in applied physics, Mr. Tracy combines technical knowledge with courtroom experience, handling cases in 42 states against every major vehicle manufacturer except Volvo. Over the past two decades, his firm has conducted 650 crash and sled tests to prove defect and safer alternative design—often performing testing when NHTSA and manufacturers did not—and he makes those tests publicly available to lawyers, regulators, and the industry. He has testified before House and Senate Committees on vehicle safety improvements and has remained active in the Texas Trial Lawyers Association for more than 30 years, teaching, writing, and speaking nationwide on product liability and vehicle safety issues.

• Education & Credentials

Mr. Tracy holds a degree in applied physics, a foundation that informs his technical approach to vehicle defect litigation. He is Board Certified in Texas, reflecting his specialized experience and qualifications in his field of practice.

• Recognition & Leadership

Mr. Tracy has testified before various U.S. House and Senate Committees on vehicle safety issues, including needed improvements to better protect occupants. He has been active in the Texas Trial Lawyers Association for over 30 years, taught for 20 years at TTLA’s Trial Advocacy College of Texas, spoken at TTLA and 35 other state trial lawyer organizations, and authored 178 articles to date.

• Professional Involvement

Over the past 20 years, Mr. Tracy’s firm has conducted 650 crash and sled tests to prove defect and safer alternative design, including testing performed when NHTSA and manufacturers did not conduct such testing. He makes these tests available to other lawyers, NHTSA, and the vehicle industry, and has also taught product liability, cross-examination techniques, and design defect case development at numerous law schools nationwide.

• Experience

For more than 38 years, Mr. Tracy has focused on vehicle crashworthiness litigation, trying 179 cases against major domestic and international manufacturers and suppliers. He has handled cases in 42 states and has litigated against every major vehicle manufacturer except Volvo, consistently working to hold the industry accountable for safety failures.

I. Forensic, physical, medical, and engineering considerations in evaluating and proving a vehicle crashworthiness case | 1:00pm – 1:30pm

Evaluating a crashworthiness case requires integrating accident reconstruction, vehicle dynamics, biomechanical analysis, and detailed medical causation evidence. Attorneys must determine whether injuries were caused by the initial collision or by a failure of the vehicle’s safety systems. This involves analyzing crush patterns, intrusion into the occupant survival space, restraint performance, airbag timing, and post-impact conditions. Understanding how physical evidence aligns with medical findings is essential to proving enhanced injury. Without this multidisciplinary foundation, a crashworthiness claim cannot stand.

II. Proving safer alternative designs that are technologically and economically feasible, that would not adversely affect the utility of the vehicle and would have prevented the injury or death | 1:30pm – 2:00pm

A successful crashworthiness claim depends on proving that a safer, feasible alternative design existed at the time of manufacture. Counsel must demonstrate that the alternative was technologically achievable, economically practical, and would not have reduced the vehicle’s utility. This requires familiarity with industry standards, testing data, and cost considerations. Attorneys must also show that the alternative design would have prevented or significantly reduced the injury. Framing this evidence persuasively is central to overcoming manufacturer defenses.

Break | 2:00pm – 2:10pm

III. Knowing when and why to turndown a potential crashworthiness case | 2:10pm – 2:30pm

Not every serious crash supports a viable crashworthiness theory, and early case screening is critical. Lawyers must evaluate crash forces, survivable space intrusion, occupant kinematics, and whether the injuries are consistent with a design defect. The financial investment in experts and testing makes weak cases particularly risky. Recognizing red flags at intake protects both the client and the firm. Strategic discipline in case selection ultimately strengthens long-term litigation success.

IV. Knowing what kind of experts to hire | 2:30pm – 2:50pm

Crashworthiness litigation is driven by expert testimony across multiple technical disciplines. Attorneys must know when to retain reconstructionists, biomechanical engineers, automotive design specialists, and qualified medical experts. Each expert must connect liability theory with injury causation in a scientifically reliable manner. Proper expert coordination also helps withstand admissibility challenges. Building the right team early can determine whether a case survives summary judgment and succeeds at trial.

V. What are the most frequent types of vehicle crashworthiness cases that are filed | 2:50pm – 3:10pm

Certain fact patterns repeatedly appear in crashworthiness litigation nationwide. These include roof crush in rollovers, seatback failures, defective restraint systems, airbag malfunctions, ejection cases, and post-collision fuel-fed fires. Recognizing these recurring categories helps attorneys quickly identify potential product liability exposure within standard negligence cases. Understanding these trends also informs investigation strategy and expert retention. Awareness of common claim types positions counsel to uncover additional avenues of recovery.