Product Liability Law Blog

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says that car manufacturers recalled 16.4 million vehicles last year. While there were less recall campaigns overall—492 recall campaigns in 2009 compared to 684 campaigns in 2008, automakers recalled 6 million more autos last year.

Toyota led the car manufacturer list with most vehicles recalled. The car manufacturer’s reputation for passenger safety took a beating after four people were killed when its floor mat on the driver's side jammed a 2009 Lexus ES 350’s gas pedal, causing the vehicle to accelerate to over 100 mph before crashing. Following the fatal car wreck, the Toyota announced a recall involving 4.26 million vehicles—its largest recall ever—to fix acceleration problems. In total, Toyota announced 9 campaigns and recalled 4.87 million autos last year.

Among the other automakers that recalled vehicles in 2009:

• Ford Motor Co.: 8 campaigns that recalled 4.5 million vehicles.

• General Motors Co.: 16 campaigns and 2.2 million autos recalled.

• Honda Motor Co.: 4 campaigns and 454,000 motor vehicles. Honda was the only auto manufacturer to see a drop in the number of vehicles it recalled in 2009 compared to the year before. The car manufacturer recalled 797,000 autos in 2008.

• Chrysler Group LLC: 15 campaigns and 59,000 vehicles.

• Nissan Motor Co.’s Kia Unit: 8 campaigns and 1.3 million autos.

• Volkswagen AG: 8 campaigns and 100,000 recalled autos.

While recalling a vehicle to fix a particular defect is a positive step toward preventing injuries and deaths, car manufacturers should not be designing, making, and selling vehicles that have any type of vehicle defect to begin with. Auto defects are not minor glitches that can be easily fixed. There are lives at stake whenever someone gets in a car that can potentially malfunction because a specific part was defective or poorly manufactured.

Do NOT be intimidated by a giant car manufacturer when it comes to pursuing an auto products liability claim for personal injury or death. Our auto products liability lawyers represents clients who were seriously injured or lost loved ones in car accidents because of structural defects, faulty engines, a seat back defects, a poorly designed seat belts, weak vehicle roofs, defective tires, faulty airbags, or other flawed vehicle parts.

Auto recalls surge in '09, NHTSA says, Detroit News, January 12, 2010

Recalls, NHTSA

Related Web Resources:
Auto Recalls, Justia
Consumer Reports

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 15-Passenger Vans , Air Bags , Automotive Product Liability , Floor Mats , Roof Crush , Seat Back Defects , Seat Belts , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , Tires , Toyota Safety Issues , WIndows

Bookmark:

As a follow-up to my September 4, 2009 blog entitled, “Toyota Rollover Lawsuits: Automaker's Former Attorney Accuses Auto Manufacturer of Concealing Evidence in Over 300 Auto Products Liability Cases,” U.S. District Judge George H. King, the judge presently assigned to the case, refused to grant Toyota’s request to seal the lawsuit in the face of Toyota allegaions that Toyota will suffer “further harm” if the complaint is not sealed. Just four days after the suit was filed, District Judge Christina A. Snyder denied a similar request by Toyota. In the latest denial, Judge King said “plaintiff’s complaint is now irreversibly in the public domain, as it is readily available on the Anternet. Therefore, sealing the complaint would be futile at this point.”

It appears, therefore, that the very specific and damning accusations of Toyota’s record withholding and possible obstruction of justice in rollover cases will remain available for the world, and especially for consumers and victims, to see. Read the entire racketeering complaint against Toyota here.

Posted by Jim Gilbert | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , Toyota Safety Issues

Bookmark:

The outcome of more than 300 auto products liability lawsuits are now being questioned, following allegations by a former senior counsel for Toyota Motor Sales Corp. that the company made him withhold key evidence from plaintiffs who had sought recovery for personal injury or wrongful death. Dimitrios P. Biller has filed a federal racketeering lawsuit alleging that because he complained to the company about its alleged misconduct he was forced to resign.

While working for Toyota between 2003 and 2007, Biller defended Toyota against plaintiffs whose rollover lawsuits pinpointed that the vehicles’ weak and unstable roofs as a cause of the injuries and deaths. His complaint also accuses Toyota of failing to turn over electronically stored data to the auto products liability lawyers of the plaintiffs.

Biller claims that the company withheld test information by allowing an engineering subsidiary to destroy key documents in hundreds of rollover accident cases where roof crush issues were a factor. He says that even today there are Toyota motor vehicles that fail to meet the automaker’s safety goals.

Our auto products liability lawyers at Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, PC have settled dozens of Toyota rollover accident cases. Biller’s allegations if they are true, are indeed very serious.

Already, a class action lawsuit has been filed accusing Toyota of illegally concealing evidence in rollover accident cases on behalf of plaintiffs who either settled or lost their auto products liability cases because certain data wasn’t made available to them. Other auto products liability law firms are now saying that they may have to consider whether their Toyota rollover lawsuits that have been resolved need to be reopened.

Toyota is calling Biller’s accusations “inaccurate and misleading.” The company is attempting have his complaint sealed because of “privileged and confidential” data that Biller should not be revealing. Biller’s lawsuit names Toyota Motor Sales, Toyota Motor Corp. of Japan, and five ex- and current lawyers and executives employed by Toyota Motor Sales as the defendants.

Victims and family members wishing to seek recovery for personal injury and wrongful death continue to file Toyota rollover lawsuits .

Rollover lawsuits could haunt Toyota, USA Today, September 2, 2009

Lawsuit: Toyota Buried Accident Evidence, CBS News, August 31, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Read the Lawsuit (PDF)

Toyota 4Runner SUV Rollover Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Crash, About Lawsuits, August 10, 2009

Continue reading "Toyota Rollover Lawsuits: Automaker's Former Attorney Accuses Auto Manufacturer of Concealing Evidence in Over 300 Auto Products Liability Cases" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , Toyota Safety Issues , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

The widower and children of a woman who died in an SUV rollover accident last May are suing Toyota Corporation and Courtesy Toyota of Brandon for wrongful death. Elisa Obediente, 56, died after losing control of her vehicle on Interstate 75 in Florida. According to police, she over-corrected her steering to avoid hitting another vehicle when making a lane change and her 1998 Toyota 4Runner rolled over multiple times.

The Florida auto products liability lawsuit contends that the defendants neglected to properly protect Obediente during the rollover crash. The plaintiffs are claiming that the SUV had inherent defects that could have been easily remedied, including roof rails, windshield headers, and pillars that might have prevented the severe roof crushthat occurred if they were made stronger. Because the roof did collapse inward, Obediente was partially ejected from the vehicle.

The plaintiffs’ Florida auto products liability lawyer maintains that Toyota could have easily installed Electronic Stability Control technology and that ESC could have helped the 56-year-old mother and wife to regain control of the car after over-steering. They also say other improvements could have been made at a low cost that might have prevented Obediente’s death.

Also, the Federal Registry had reportedly completed a study ranking the 4Runner as the second car most likely in its class to be involved in a rollover crash, Yet, according to the plaintiffs, Toyota failed to reveal the rollover risks and even suggested that customers purchase a tire and wheel package that actually could increase the chances of a 4Runner rolling over. They also say that the defendants knew as far back as the late 1960’s that these SUV’s were susceptible to roof crushes but they misled the public into believing that they had strengthened their vehicles to withstand such accidents.

The Florida wrongful death lawsuit also is accusing the defendants of falsifying test results to come up with inaccurate rollover crush force minimums to make it appear as if certain auto parts had been strengthened against higher roof crush forces.

The plaintiffs are seeking wrongful death compensation, as well as compensation for loss of care, financial support, companionship, love, moral support, and comfort.

Products Liability
Auto products liability cases can be brought when a design defect, manufacturing defect, or marketing defect contributed to a car crash that resulted in personal injury or wrongful death.

Woman dies after SUV rolls over on I-75, TBO.com, May 24, 2009

Toyota 4Runner SUV Rollover Lawsuit Filed Over Fatal Crash, About Lawsuits, August 10, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Toyota 4Runner Problems, AutoMotix.net

SUV Rollovers, BrainandSpinalCord.org

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Florida , Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , States , Toyota Safety Issues , Wrongful Death

Bookmark:

In San Francisco, California, a federal jury awarded a Bay Area musician $18 million for his auto products liability lawsuit against automaker Ford. 38-year-old resident Dax Pierson is now a quadriplegic because of injuries he sustained in a 2005 15-passenger van rollover accident involving a Ford vehicle.

According to Pierson’s California personal injury complaint, he sustained multiple spinal fractures when the E-350 van he was riding on Interstate 80 in Iowa rolled over 2 ½ times after striking black ice. Pierson, who was seated in the back passenger seat, struck his head on the roof after the seat became detached from the floor. He was using a seat belt. No one else sustained serious injuries during the crash.

During the auto products liability trial, Ford said that the van was not defective and fulfilled all industry requirements. Representatives for the car maker instead blamed the manager of Pierson’s band, Patrick Scott, for driving too fast. The jury, however, disagreed with Ford and awarded Pierson $6 million for pain and suffering and $12.3 million for medical costs.

Pierson founded the band Subtle and was its vocalist, keyboard player, and lead composer and arranger. Now, he uses special equipment that pushes buttons on a computer keyboard to compose and arrange his music. He also needs an attendant with him 24-hours a day.

In another California auto products liability lawsuit, a Los Angeles judge told Jaguar Land Rover that it must pay a now paralyzed man $21.1 million because the Land Rover Discovery SUV he was riding rolled over a number of times after it was struck by a teen driver who was driving at 80mph on the 118 freeway in 2003.

Sukhsagar Pannu, 53, sustained a catastrophic spinal cord injury from the SUV rollover accident. The former field hockey player can no longer utilize his legs and arms and he requires 24-hour care.

The judge says that the vehicle’s high gravity center made it prone to rollover accidents and the SUV’s roof collapsed too easily. Meantime, Jaguar Land Rover says it plans to appeal the verdict. Their lawyer says that the 16-year-old driver is the one that is at fault for causing Pannu’s catastrophic SUV rollover accident.

Paralyzed Oakland musician sues Ford, wins, SF Gate, May 29, 2009
Land Rover maker ordered to pay $21.1 million in rollover case, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Rollover: The Hidden History of the SUV, PBS.org

15-Passenger Van Safety, NHTSA

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: 15-Passenger Vans , Automotive Product Liability , California , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers , States

Bookmark:

To increase occupant protection during rollover accidents, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is instituting new roof safety standards for light vehicles and heavier vehicles that will result in dramatically stronger vehicle roof structures. Under the new standard, light vehicles weighing up to 6,000 pounds will have to withstand a force of three times the vehicle’s weight. This is a significant increase from the current standard that requires a vehicle to withstand 1.5 times the vehicle weight applied to one side of the roof. Heavier vehicles, weighing from 6,000 to 10,000 pounds, will now have an actual roof safety standards they will have to meet. Their roofs will have to withstand a force equivalent to 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight. The phase-in period will start in September 2012 and must be completed for all vehicles within these weight ranges by the 2017 model year.

While this new standard should increase passenger protection during rollover crashes, the NHTSA is quick to point out that strengthening vehicles’ roofs is only one solution to preventing rollover deaths. About 10,000 people are killed in the US each year in rollover crashes, and roof strength was a factor in only 667 of those deaths. The NHTSA estimates that the new roof safety standards will prevent another 135 rollover fatalities from occurring each year.

There are other safety measures that auto makers can implement to prevent rollover accidents. The NHTSA says electronic stability control (ESC) can reduce rollover deaths by anywhere from 4,200 to 5,500 fatalities each year. Safety belts is another effective countermeasure that the NHTSA says saves lives during rollover crashes—reducing deaths by 80% in light trucks and 74% in passenger cars. According to studies, an ejected vehicle occupant has a three times greater chance of dying than a vehicle occupant who manages to stay in the vehicle during an auto accident. Use of seat belts is one way to keep occupants securely fastened in their vehicles.

It is up to vehicle manufacturers to make sure that they meet federal safety standards and that they install safety device that are free from defects and in proper working condition in the autos that they sell. When failure to make vehicles and auto parts that are free from defects results in personal injury or wrongful death, the auto maker and other liable parties may be held liable for products liability.

Proving negligence in a rollover accident can be tough—especially in rollover collisions involving just one vehicle. This is why you need to work with rollover accident attorneys who have the experience, skills, and resources to successfully pursue your financial recovery.

U.S. DOT Doubles Roof Strength Standard for Light Vehicles, NHTSA, April 30, 2009

Read the Final Rule (PDF)

Related Web Resources:
Roof Strength and Injury Risk, IIHS (PDF)

Safercar.gov

Continue reading "Federal Government Improves Rollover Protection by Doubling New Roof Safety Standard for Light Vehicles and Introducing Standards for Heavier Autos " »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

Auto manufacturers are responsible for implementing the design and manufacturing precautions necessary to minimize the chances that their vehicles will become involved in a rollover accident. In the event a rollover accident does occur, then vehicle makers must make sure that the structure of the auto can withstand the crash and that there are safety precautions in place to prevent vehicle occupants from suffering serious injuries. Rollover accident victims and their families may be entitled to products liability or wrongful death compensation if a car maker could have done more during the design or manufacture of the vehicle to minimize the seriousness of future injuries.

Last month, the family of TV anchorwoman Polly Gonzalez filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. The plaintiffs contend that not only did the seat she was sitting on fail to work correctly, but the roof of the Ford Explorer was not sturdy enough to survive a rollover accident. Gonzales’s two children were also injured in the motor vehicle crash.

In an unrelated lawsuit, a man who became a paraplegic after his 2005 Chevrolet Colorado rolled over is suing General Motors Corporation and Davis-Barr Chevrolet Pontiac, Inc. for his spinal cord injuries. In his automotive products liability lawsuit, the man claims that the seat belt and seat of his vehicle malfunctioned. He also contends that General Motors Corp. failed to provide him with the standard of care and duty he was owed when the company failed to exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, marketing, and sales of the vehicle he was riding in, as well as neglected to provide appropriate warnings.

Another man, who is now a quadriplegic, is suing Volkwagen for his personal injury from a 2002 auto accident. Owen Milne is seeking an unspecified amount of compensation for products liability and personal injury because the 1999 Jetta he was a passenger in flipped over as his then fiancé, Rebecca Beisswenger, swerved the car to avoid crashing into a vehicle that passed them on a curve in a no-passing zone.

Beisswenger lost control of the car, which rolled over a number of times down an embankment and back onto the highway. The support beams that were supposed to hold up the roof of the Jetta’s passenger side collapsed. Milne suffered a vertebrae fracture and his neck became compressed. The seat belt he was wearing failed to keep him securely in his seat. Mline’s personal injury lawsuit claims the 1999 Volkwagen Jetta was defectively designed and not capable of keeping its structural integrity during a rollover crash.

South Burlington man sues VW alleging Jettas are unsafe, BurlingtonFreePress.com, January 18, 2009

Lawsuit Filed in Arkansas Roll Over Accident That Left Man Paraplegic, The Open Press, January 24, 2009

Family of Vegas TV anchor suing Ford over crash, Mercury News, January 25, 2009

Related Web Resources:
Rollover, SaferCar.gov

Rollover Information and Prevention, Consumers Union

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Roof Crush , Seat Belts , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

We have seen a remarkable number of cases in which seat belted occupants are somehow either partially ejected or completely thrown from a vehicle during a rollover despite the fact that they were wearing their seat belts. The evidence points to a startling conclusion: seatbelts are not reliably remaining locked during the course of a rollover.

In some ways this isn’t surprising. The lock mechanisms in most American cars are designed principally for non-rollover accidents. They are often simple designs. One is just a small marble-sized steel ball in a small plastic “dish.” Accident forces cause the ball to move up on to the edge of the dish rather than the bottom, where the ball pushes a small plastic bar into the seat belt retractor teeth, locking it up. During a rollover the ball can roll back into the base of the dish, unlocking the retractor and, if tension is released and then reapplied to the seat belt, causing belt webbing to pay out. This can happen, for instance, when a rolling vehicle lands on its wheels forcing the ball back to the bottom of the dish and releasing belt tension momentarily. The occupant’s body then moves downward or to the side pulling out webbing while the retractor is unlocked and introducing slack.

Fortunately, this does not happen most of the time in rollovers. However, when it does happen the consequences are grave. Nobody should be left without effective restraint during a rollover. In rollover accidents as long as you stay in the car and the car doesn’t crush on you, you stand a very good chance of surviving without serious permanent injury. When you are ejected or partially ejected, such as when a head sticks far outside the window opening, the risk of serious injury and death skyrocket.

Fortunately the fix is simple and cheap. Most European seat belts have a second, backup method for locking the retractor, called the web sensing device. This device, which costs less than fifty cents, locks the belt any time the webbing pulls out rapidly. You can check your car to see if you have one. If you pull the seat belt webbing out very fast, does it lock up even when the car is sitting still? If so, you have a web sensing feature.

Our auto makers are already using this feature in the cars they sell to their European customers. American customers deserve the same protection.

~Stuart Ollanik~

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

Over the years, we have been fortunate enough to see our efforts pay off in terms of auto safety. We think it is clear that certain safety improvements have resulted directly from the information brought to light by auto safety lawsuits which are often covered by the media, from imposing the costs of particularly dangerous designs on the manufacturer that chooses to use them, and on the safety research that has been motivated by, and often paid for by, representatives of injured consumers. One example: the great improvement in Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV) rollover resistance.

In the 1970’s Utility Vehicles became popular for the first time, but several of the most popular were astonishingly prone to rollover – some rolling over while cornering at speeds as low as 22 mph. Rollover dangers were identified by both University and consumer protection researchers, and the danger was exposed by lawyers for consumers injured by these unnecessarily tipsy vehicles. By the mid 1980’s, the worst of these were replaced by similar models with greatly improved rollover resistance. Still, some manufacturers continued to market vehicles that looked more stable, but still had dangerous rollover instability. These vehicles were prone to rollover in the event the driver needed to make an emergency steer, such as to avoid a vehicle suddenly changing lanes, an animal, an object in the roadway, or even a child. Lawsuits in the 1980’s and 1990’s helped not only expose these risks, especially in Ford Bronco IIs and Explorers (especially pre-2002), Toyota 4Runners (especially pre-1996), Mitsubishi Monteros, and Isuzu SUVs, but also helped to identify the solutions, including making the vehicles slightly lower and slightly wider. Lawsuits also helped in the development of test methods for discriminating among more and less stable vehicles. This publicity led to government research, and a government star rating system for rollover stability. As a result, in recent years many models of SUVs have been designed (or re-designed) with stability in mind, providing much greater rollover resistance even in accident avoidance situations where strong steering is required.

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

At a June 4 hearing before the US Senate, auto safety regulators said they need more time to make sure that adding more headroom and weight to vehicle roofs will not increase the chances of a vehicle rollover. At the center of discussions was the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s proposal to update its roof safety standards.

The higher gravity center of pick-up trucks and SUVs is what make these kinds of vehicles more likely to rollover. The NHTSA's current standard, established in 1973, requires that passenger cars withstand a force 1.5 times the vehicle’s weight during a rollover accident. The 2005 proposal would increase that standard to 2.5 times the vehicle weight. Critics, however, believe this is still not enough to increase passenger safety in a rollover crash, and they have been pushing for an even tougher standard—which is why, in January, the NHTSA said it would consider revising its proposal.

Although by law, the NHTSA has until July 1 to revise its roof standard, lawmakers want the update delayed until regulators arrive at the “correct” standard. Some safety advocates, however, say that there is no concrete evidence to indicate that strengthening current roof standards would significantly minimize the number of injuries and deaths in rollover crashes. Rollover deaths make up 25% of all traffic accident fatalities in the United States, and there were over 10,000 rollover deaths in 2007.

The NHTSA proposal also wants to make automakers exempt from state products liability lawsuits if the vehicles involved in the auto accidents met the new roof safety standards. This would prevent injury passengers from being able to sue for compensation for medical costs, lost income, recovery costs, and other damages.

Our defective auto products law firm represents products liability clients that were injured in rollover accidents and other motor vehicle crashes that occurred because a motor vehicle or one of its auto parts was defective. We have helped injury victims all over the United States recover personal injury compensation.

U.S. Lawmakers Question Regulators on Vehicle Roof Strength Rules, Insurance Journal, June 5, 2008

Roof Crush Standard Flawed, Preempts State Efforts, OMBWatch.org, June 10, 2008

Related Web Resources:

IIHS testifies on the relationship of roof strength and injury risk in rollover crashes (PDF)

NHTSA 2005 Roof Crush Proposal

Continue reading "Auto Regulators May Need More Time to Develop Tougher Roof Strength Regulations" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

The SUV rollover lawsuit filed against Mitsubishi Motors by the family of TLC Singer Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes will go forward, says the Georgia Court of Appeals. The auto manufacturing giant had tried to have the wrongful death lawsuit dismissed because the company is located abroad and the accident occurred in Honduras.

Lopes died while on vacation in April 2002 in a rollover collision outside the town of La Ceiba. Lopes, 30, was driving the Mitsubishi SUV that rolled over.

Representing the pop star’s family in the case is Attorney Stuart Ollanik, a senior partner at the auto products liability law firm of Gilbert, Ollanik & Komyatte,PC. Mr. Ollanik says that the sport utility vehicle that Lopes was operating was not as resistant to rollovers as it could and should have been—especially because many SUVs that are now being made are “a little lower, just a little bit wider, and with electronic stability." Electronic stability systems can automatically adjust the steering and braking of a motor vehicle so that it doesn’t tip over.

Mr. Ollanik and Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, PC are long-term advocates of improving SUVs. Testing conducted by the law firm show that just lowering the center of gravity of a sport utility vehicle and widening the wheel base can prevent an SUV from rolling over. Many engineers and safety experts agree.

Mitsubishi has denied any wrongdoing related to Lopes’s rollover death.

Our auto products liability law firm is nationally recognized for helping injured clients and their families across the United States recover injury and wrongful death compensation from some of the largest auto manufacturers in the country and the world.

To watch Stuart Ollanik's recent interview with Fox Colorado News please visit: SUV Lawsuit Aimed At Improving Safety, MyFoxColorado.com, March 9, 2008

TLC's Lisa 'Left Eye' Lopes dies in wreck, CNN.com, April 26, 2002

Related Web Resources:

A Few Facts About SUVs and Safety, PBS.org

The Physics of SUV Rollover Accidents

Continue reading "Appeals Court Says SUV Rollover Lawsuit Against Mitsubishi For the 2002 Death of Pop Star Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes Can Go Forward" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Automotive Product Liability , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a report this week that confirms what many products liability attorneys and injury victims have said about sport utility vehicles all along: If they were made with better roofs, there would be less serious injuries and deaths when rollovers do occur.

Automakers have disputed this claim for years and safety regulators, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, have been slow to condemn the quality of SUV roofs without more definitive evidence.

The IIHS report, however, is definite about its conclusion that over 200 SUV rollover deaths could have been avoided in 2006 if these SUVs were made with roofs as strong as the best one the that the IIHS tested. “Strengthening a vehicle’s roof,” according to IIHS President Adrian Lund, “reduces injury risk.. a lot.”

The institute came to this conclusion after compiling data from 12 U.S. States and comparing the injury and death rates for four-door SUVs. The SUVs tested were sold from the mid-1990’s through 2004 and did not include models with side-curtain air bags or stability control.

Not everyone is convinced by the IIHS’s finding that improving vehicle roof strength is the answer. The NHTSA says that people not wearing seatbelts continues to be a major cause of rollover deaths. The NHTSA hasn’t revised its roof strength standard since 1971. It is working on a revised standard and estimates that this update, once implemented, will help save 13 to 44 lives a year.

Nissan, the automaker whose vehicle ranked as the “best roof” tested, says other factors, such as the seriousness of the crash, also affected the chances of serious injuries or deaths.

Roof Crushes
A roof that crushes during a motor vehicle accident increases the chances of passenger injury or death. Spinal cord injuries, head injures, neck injuries, traumatic brain injuries, and death are more likely to occur when a roof crushes into passengers’ bodies. Roof crushes are more likely to happen during a rollover. Because of the height and shape of SUV’s, these vehicles have a higher chance than cars of becoming involved in a rollover accident.

Our auto crash law firm represents clients injured in SUV rollover crashes and other kinds of serious injury accidents throughout the United States. We understand the nature of SUV rollover crashes and have gone up against some of the largest auto manufacturers in the world to sue for damages for our clients.

Crash-test report backs stronger roofs on SUVs, USA Today, March 12, 2008

Roof Strength and Injury Risk in Rollover Crashes, IIHS.org (PDF)

Related Web Resources:

Rollover Status Report, IIHS.org, (PDF)

Safety Briefing on Roof Crush, Citizen.org

Continue reading "IIHS Report Says Over 200 SUV Rollover Deaths Could Have Been Avoided In 2006 If Vehicles Had Stronger Roofs" »

Posted by Gilbert, Ollanik, & Komyatte, P.C. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Roof Crush , Sport Utility Vehicle Rollovers

Bookmark: