Insurance companies and defense lawyers often use this phrase to suggest a person is blaming a product for harm that was really caused by the original accident. That framing misses the point. An enhanced injury is the added or worsened harm that happens because a product failed to protect someone as it reasonably should have once an accident or other dangerous event was already underway.

A common example is a crash that would have caused moderate injuries, but a defective seatback, airbag, helmet, fuel system, or other safety feature turns those injuries into something far worse. The first event may not have been caused by the product at all. The claim focuses on the extra damage linked to the defect. In product cases, this is often called a crashworthiness claim or a second-collision case.

That distinction matters because a person can still have a valid product liability claim even when someone else caused the initial wreck. In Connecticut, these cases are generally brought under the Connecticut Product Liability Act (1979), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-572m to 52-572r. The defense will often argue that all injuries came from the first impact, not the defective product, so medical proof becomes central.

For an injury claim, the fight is usually over causation and apportionment: what harm would have happened anyway, and what harm was made worse by the defect. That can strongly affect damages, especially in serious brain, spinal, or burn injury cases.