Jury Verdict $42 million in Riley Hein Side Underride Case: Found the Trailer Manufacturer Negligent — The jury found that Utility Trailer was negligent and that its negligence caused Riley Hein’s death. They determined the total damages to Riley’s estate and his parents was $42 million. However, the jury found that Utility Trailer was 45% at fault, while the truck driver was 55% at fault, so the total verdict against UTM is $18.9 million.
Joint Defense Agreement of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association — collaborating to defend themselves from lawsuits when people die under trucks — perfectly legal.
Great Dane Trailers 2016 Side Underride Case. Incriminating signs of industry lobbying efforts to prevent regulations which would have saved lives.
Meanwhile, what could the manufacturers have been doing instead of defending themselves for the last 50 years? (1969 DOT intention of adding a side guard regulation, 1970 DOT expectation that side guards would be developed, & 2019 Vanguard Trailers side guard patent application) If they had concentrated on R&D for the best possible underride protection instead of opposing underride regulations, imagine how many people could have been saved!
NHTSA not doing its job and continuing to undercount underride deaths: NHTSA says that the TIFA data is what they used in their regulatory analysis. Yet, FARS data is undercounted and TIFA data is based on FARS data! How does that make any sense?!
Here are 3 examples of errors in specific known underride crashes: #1– Roya’s FARS report says that there was NO underride; #2 — AnnaLeah & Mary’s FARS report shows that only 1 person died from REAR underride in Georgia in 2013 but 2 daughters died under the truck; #3 — In this well-known May 2016 side underride of a Tesla car under a trailer, the FARS report says “NO UNDERRIDE”. Joshua Brown/Tesla side underrideFARS Report
September 3, 1969: Congress was discussing the need to pass a law for improved rear, front, and side underride protection on all trucks to permanently remove this deadly problem from American roadways.
Congress, the ball is in your court. What more do you need to know to convince you to take action? Is it time for a Congressional Underride Hearing?
On September 3, 1969, U.S. Congressman Vanik from Ohio was given the floor. He made a lengthy statement, with noteworthy comments about underride protection, including the inadequacy of the proposed regulation for rear underride and the absence of regulations for smaller straight trucks, as well as protection on the sides and front of trucks.
Wait! What? Imagine! Fifty years ago, not only was DOT proposing rulemaking, but the U.S. Congress had become informed on this issue and wanted to see immediate action taken to make comprehensive and effective underride protection on all trucks THE LAW!
Are you listening, Congress? NOW is the time to act! Pass the STOP Underrides Bill into law already!
Too many people have already paid the price since that public Congressional discussion which took place fifty years ago on September 3, 1969. No more.
The standard should be applicable to all vehicles and trucks so that the risk of damage and fatalities resulting from nonmatching bumper guards is permanently and forever removed from American highways.. . . I hope that your committee will issue a mandate for this regulation next year [1970].. . . the unsafe conditions resulting from the use of high-front bumpers on heavy trucks are to be evaluated for eventual development of a regulation.
As I read a report of the recent jury decision on the lawsuit against the trailer manufacturer under whose trailer Riley Hein burned to death, I paid close attention to the comments made by the defense attorney. Apparently he did not pay close attention to the testimonies given by expert witnesses whom he had opportunity to cross-examine.
Jeff Croasdell, attorney for the manufacturing company, called Riley Hein’s death a terrible tragedy, but he said the jury had found the trailer involved in the incident was not defective so the company was reaching out to jurors to determine the basis for their decision.
Croasdell speculated the jury might have thought the company should have installed side underride guards on the trailer, but he said no such devices are currently on the market. Family awarded $42M in I-40 crash that killed teen driver
Hold on! His statement is totally not true. The AngelWing side guards have been available from Perry Ponder since 2012. Here is a video of an August 2017 AngelWing installation on an Ohio transport company trailer: Side Guards Save Lives; AngelWing Installation.
Another transport company recently posted about their installation of AngelWing side guards:
The Utility Trailer Manufacturer (UTM) lawyer was also quoted as saying,
“In terms of a product that works, nobody has come up with something that doesn’t make the trailer more dangerous,” he said.
I’m not sure what he considers more dangerous than leaving motorists vulnerable to riding under trucks and having the truck shatter their heads and torsos — or put them at risk of a fiery death. The article does not give a clue as to his speculation in that regard, although I have previously responded to the industry’s stated concerns about side guards.
Another article, gives us a closer look at the attorney’s perspective:
. . . two weeks of maddening arguments for and against side underride guards and the gruesome, painful details of how Riley died, screaming for help. . .
So gruesome was Riley’s death that jurors were told they did not have to look at photos of his charred remains.
A phalanx of attorneys for the California-based UTM, led by Jeffrey Croasdell, argued that side underride guards, which are not required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are ineffective, problematic, cost-prohibitive and unnecessary.
Moreover, he opined, a semitrailer fitted with such guards is even more dangerous than one without.
Unnecessary? Seriously, did he listen to two weeks of testimony and still make these statements to the reporters? What is he talking about? Did he cover his ears when Riley Hein’s terrible death was described? Did he not see the successful AngelWing crash tests? Would he have the trucking industry do nothing to prevent this unimaginable violence to the human body?
So what does this tell us about the trailer manufacturer’s defense team:
Either he was misquoted by the reporters;
Or he was very misinformed;
Or he was not telling the truth — thereby misleading the public with false statements about a matter of life and death.
Well, I get that a defense attorney is paid to defend and that the trailer manufacturers, in 2004, actually signed a Joint Defense Agreement through the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) to enable them to “counter these activities and defend these lawsuits effectively.” Over the years, I imagine that company engineers have likely faced the frustration of knowing that an engineering solution could be found but having their hands tied from moving forward with any substantial R&D.
I can’t change the past. But I can challenge the leaders of our federal government to take the bull by the horn and pass the STOP Underrides Act — as is — to give the green light to creative engineers and force the trucking industry to put on comprehensive underride protection (front, side, and rear) which will, at long last, protect vulnerable motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists from horrific underride deaths and injuries.
And if our Congressional leaders do not take this action, what will that say?
A New Mexico jury found a trailer manufacturer “negligent” yesterday in a side underride fatality. “The family hopes the verdict ‘sends a message’ to the truck-trailer industry to take measures to prevent underride crashes.” Read more here.
Everyone, please call Congress at this D.C. phone no. and ask for your U.S. Senators and Representatives. When you get transferred to their office, simply tell the staffer that you want their boss to cosponsor the STOP Underrides Bill (S.665 and HR.1511): (202) 224-3121.
Thank you, Eric Hein and family. Thinking of you and all underride victims. Precious ones gone too soon. Never forgotten.
Last night, I was reading “Truck by Trailer”; The History of the Truck Trailer Manufacturing Industry, published by the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association(TTMA) in 2017. It had come in the mail this week, and I thought that I would see what I could discover. What I discovered was that there was a photo of a May 29, 1969, Western Union Telegram from the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau (equivalent of today’s NHTSA at DOT) to the TTMA. The message was:
THE TIME FOR COMMENT ON DOCKET 1-11–REAR UNDERRIDE PROTECTION–HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1969.
That was referencing the rulemaking which was posted in the Federal Register on March 19, 1969, and in which DOT had stated their intention to add underride protection to the sides of large trucks. Interesting, I thought. So I started searching online to see if I could find a copy of that telegram to post online. After all, I was reading it 50 years later on August 1, 2019.
What I found instead was a Congressional Record from September 3, 1969, which included discussion of the National Traffic & Motor Safety Act of 1966 to fund, extend, & expand upon it. After some in-depth discussions about safety head gear and tire safety, Congressman Vanik from Ohio was given the floor. He made a lengthy statement, with noteworthy comments about underride protection, including the inadequacy of the proposed regulation for rear underride and the absence of regulations for smaller straight trucks, as well as protection on the sides and front of trucks.
Wait! What? Imagine! Fifty years ago, not only was DOT proposing rulemaking, but the U.S. Congress had become informed on this issue and wanted to see immediate action taken to make comprehensive and effective underride protection on all trucks THE LAW!
Are you listening, Congress? NOW is the time to act! What are we waiting for? Too many people — maybe well over 50,000 — have already paid the price since that public Congressional discussion which took place on September 3, 1969.
Mr. VANIK. . . I would like to take this time to ask the chairman of the committee whether any consideration was given in this proposed legislation to direct the Administrator to provide for regulations which would bring about uniformity of bumper levels. With the intermix of automobiles and trucks on our Interstate Highway System, I ride in terror, as does everyone else on the public highways, when approach is made to trucks which have no bumper levels to meet those of an automobile. The fear of telescoping under a truck is something that haunts every driver on our highways.
There are thousands of accidents and hundreds of deaths that occur every year as a result of the telescoping problem. Some people have been decapitated in this way. And, it seems to me that some definite action should be taken to provide for uniformity of bumper levels between all vehicles. . . I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether or not your committee considered this matter in connection with this legislation?
Mr. STAGGERS. I might say that the Secretary and the agency or the bureau has this authority now. I am informed that they have probably been looking into it. We do not know whether they plan to come up with any recommendations. But this is their duty and I might say that we can call to their attention now the fact that they should come up with some recommendation in the manufacture of trucks and cars so that there might be, as nearly as possible, developed some safety device as the gentleman has suggested that will prevent these accidents in order to keep these vehicles from overlapping upon impact.
I think the gentleman has raised a very good point. When this bill was brought up in 1966 this authority was given to the Secretary and to the National Safety Bureau.
Mr. VANIK. . . I understand that the Department of Transportation has published, as of March 19, 1969, a proposed rule which would become effective as of January 1, 1971, to provide rear underride protection for trailers and trucks with gross vehicle weight of over 10,000 pounds. . . {this rule was actually not finalized and effective until 1998}
But the Department’s rule is inadequate. The rule does not “apply to truck tractors, or any vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.” What these smaller trucks lack in danger in weight they make up for in speed. The standard should be applicable to all vehicles and trucksso that the risk of damage and fatalities resulting from nonmatching bumper guards is permanently and forever removed from American highways.
All trucks should be covered under the ruling and the ruling should have the force of law behind it. If such a regulation is not adopted during this year, I hope that your committee will issue a mandate for this regulation next year.
Following is a letter which I received on this subject from Mr. Robert Brenner of the National Highway Safety Bureau on August 4, 1969:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1969. Hon. CHARLES A. VANIK, House of Representatives, Washington, D .C.
DEAR MR. VANIK: This is in further reply to your letter of July 14, 1969, requesting that the Secretary of Transportation issue regulations to improve bumper surface relationships between heavy trucks and passenger cars.
We concur with your views on the benefits that can be realized in reducing highway injuries and collision damage by requiring improved performance capabilities from motor vehicle bumpers. The National Highway Safety Bureau is, in fact, in the midst of developing several regulations that should alleviate, to some extent, the problems created by mismatched vehicle bumpers. . .
For your added information, the unsafe conditions resulting from the use of high front bumpers on heavy trucks are to be evaluated for eventual development of a regulation. . .Sincerely, ROBERT BRENNER, Acting Director.
He then lists specifics of the proposed rear underride rule, including this statement which was also included in the March 19, 1969, Federal Register:
It is anticipated that the proposed Standard will be amended, after technical studies have been completed, to extend the requirement for underride protection to the sides of large vehicles.
The newly-released NTSB preliminary report describes June 3, 2019, Mississippi box truck/van crash with 8 fatalities: right front of the truck hit the right front of the van head-on. The truck OVERRODE the front of the van & penetrated the passenger compartment. Deadly PCI (Passenger Compartment Intrusion) occurred.
The driver of the van sat in a part of the van which did not go under the truck — no PCI (just like me). He walked away with minor injuries. The eight other van occupants all suffered fatal injuries.
On October 21, 2010, the NTSB issue a Truck Underride Safety Recommendation based upon the investigation of a 2009 crash in which a truck overrode 3 cars and 10 people died as a result. The Recommendation reads like this:
Since 2003, European Union countries have required front underride protection systems on all newly manufactured heavy-goods vehicles, which indicates that such a standard is feasible. The NTSB concludes that collisions between passenger vehicles and the front of single-unit trucks or tractor-trailers are common types of crashes that result in fatalities, and front underride contributes to crash severity. The NTSB therefore reiterates its prior recommendations that NHTSA. . . require all newly manufactured trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds to be equipped with front underride protection systems. . .
That was 9 years ago. Tell me, how many people could still be alive today had NHTSA acted upon that safety recommendation? Congress, I’ll say it again: the ball is in your court. Will you act decisively to STOP all forms of truck underride? Front, side, rear, tractor-trailer, single-unit truck, passenger vehicle, pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist.
June 26, 2009 front override crash near Miami, Oklahoma. Investigated by the NTSB
I’m a survivor of a truck crash (because my part of the car did not go under the truck) and the mom of two daughters who needlessly lost their lives to preventable rear underride. So I know what I’m saying when I tell you that every part of the STOP Underrides! Actwill correct a specific aspect of the underride problem.
It is a comprehensive bill; if any part is left out, it will mean senseless deaths will continue. Any compromise made will be a compromise in human lives — a costly price paid by underride victims, survivors, their families, and all of society in the costs incurred.
Would Congress say, “When you manufacture new airplanes, make sure that they don’t have the problems of the 737 MAX,” and allow the existing ones to stay in operation — as is? In my mind, the question is the same for the underride problem. Will Congress say, “When you manufacture new trucks, make sure that they don’t have the underride problem,” and allow the existing ones to stay in operation — as is?
That would be to knowingly sentence countless people to sure Death By Underride over the next couple of decades until the existing trucks — which have a 10-15 year life — are no longer in service.
It will take an Act of Congress to bring about this needed change in the trucking industry.
If there are people dying from an automotive defect, would we want those cars to be fixed or left as is? If there are people dying from a dangerous truck design, would we want those trucks to be fixed or left as is — knowing that if we leave the millions of trucks on the roads as is, we are sentencing countless people to death by underride?
Is there any precedent for issuing a recall on unsafe trucks, in other words, doing a retrofit of safety equipment on an existing truck? I’m glad you asked. Yes, there is.
The first one I’ll mention is conspicuity or reflective tape. NHTSA issued a mandate for retro reflective tape to be installed on trucks and trailers to increase their visibility to nearby motorists. FMCSA issued a mandate for retrofitting of existing trucks and trailers with this safety countermeasure.
These requirements were set up by the FMCSA to help improve visibility in low light conditions and help reduce potentially fatal motor vehicle crashes into the sides or back of stopped or parked trucks and tractor trailers at night or in poor visibility.
On December 10, 1992, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA published a final rule requiring that trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, which have an overall width of 80 inches or more and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, (with the exception of pole trailers and trailers designed exclusively for living or office use) be equipped on the sides and rear with a means for making them more visible on the road. The NHTSA ruling allows trailer manufacturers to install either red and white retro reflective tape or sheeting or reflex reflectors. This tape is commonly referred to as DOT C2 reflective tape and is thus marked for easy identification.https://ifloortape.com/requirements-for-conspicuity-dot-c2-reflective-tape-for-trucks-tractor-trailers-to-meet-federal-dot-fmcsa-nhtsa-regulations/
RETROFIT requirement for retro reflective tape on tractor trailers:Under federal requirements, trailers and semi-trailers manufactured prior to December 1, 1993 must be retrofitted with retroreflective tape or an array of reflex reflectors. The final date for compliance is June 1, 2001. . . Trailers built after the 1993 date are delivered from the factory with reflective tape and do not need to be retrofitted.Bulk Transporter, March 22, 2001, Deadline Approaches for Reflective Tape Retrofit
Another example of a retrofit involving tractor trailers, or in this case a recall, is the Strick Trailers recall of faulty rear impact guards in 2016:
Strick Trailers is recalling certain single-axle 28-foot van trailers for a rear-impact guard issue, according to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration document. More specifically, 2005-2009 van trailers manufactured July 25, 2004, to Feb. 3, 2009, and equipped with rear-impact guards using gussets 55997 and 55998 are affected. Gussets on affected trailers can increase the chances of injury during a crash, thereby violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, “Rear Impact Guards.” Owners will be notified by Strick to have reinforcements installed to the rear-impact guards at no cost. For more information, contact Strick’s customer service at 260-692-6121. The recall was set to begin on June 17.
Side by side with the notice of the Strick recall in the Landline Magazine in May 2016 was another notice announcing that the FMCSA had issued a safety advisory for one manufacturer’s tankers due to “inadequate accident damage protection:”
Affected TYTAL tankers are unauthorized, according to the FMCSA, until repairs and testing have been completed. Effective June 1, enforcement and fines will be given to owners and drivers operating any of the above tankers that have not made necessary repairs. TYTAL has notified known customers, and repairs have begun free of charge.
It seems to me that these examples demonstrate the existence of a precedent for recalls and retrofitting rules to correct dangerous designs in Commercial Motor Vehicles which could, if uncorrected, result in death and/or injury in the event of a crash.
Clearly, a truck that does not have effective and comprehensive underride protection is a safety concern. After all, the warning label which is found on the horizontal bar of a rear underride guard specifically says so:
Failure to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act Standards FMVSS 223/224 (US) or FMVSS 223 (Canada) could result in injury to occupants of another vehicle in the event of a rear end collision with the trailer which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury.
Who will pay for the cost of the retrofitting? The ATA made the assertion, in their Letter of Opposition, that if Congress mandated the STOP Underrides Act — which includes a retrofitting requirement — then the trucking industry would be put out of business and the U.S. economy would be adversely affected:
Equipping the estimated 12 million trailers with a side underride guard, identified in Mr. Young’s testimony as costing approximately $2,900 including shipping, would equate to approximately $34.8 billion spent on underride guards. That staggering figure would result in what is likely the largest unfunded mandate on a private sector industry in U.S. history. Furthermore, when combined with the expected cost of labor in installing these guards, would exceed the industry’s annual net revenue, essentially putting trucking out of business, and grinding our economy to a screeching halt.
On what basis (what facts and formula) do they make such an exaggerated claim? The fact is that mass production will bring the costs down from the current price of retrofit kits (now at very low voluntary production). Furthermore, the industry should be well aware that adjustments can be made to spread the cost over multiple parties and multiple years.
Take as an example the increased manufacturing costs of trailers due to the tarriff on aluminum and steel and the ability of the manufacturers to share those costs with their customers.
Besides which, there are numerous other reasons to expect that this mandate provides many benefits to the trucking industry and the U.S. economy, including protecting the livelihood of truck drivers. Side guards will add additional fuel savings to that provided by side skirts. Production and installation of this technology will create jobs. Liability risk will go down. IRS Section 179 allows for tax deduction for equipment.
In the end, if we do not retrofit, there will continue to be many underride deaths for years to come. We then have to face the question, What is the acceptable number of underride deaths? And, who should decide that question? Congress, the ball is in your court.
From the very beginning of our journey to make truck crashes more survivable with the installation of effective underride protection, we have been reaching out to members of the trucking industry — manufacturers, transport companies, truck drivers, industry associations, and engineers among others. We have found some who are cooperative and many who are committed to working on solutions. However, we have also observed a reluctance to move forward with R&D — not to mention installation of solutions.
Beyond industry hesitation, we have also read about and listened to outright opposition. While I appreciate that they would find it important to express concerns they might have about the legislation and the technology, I do not find it helpful if their statements are not backed up with facts or documentation — especially when there is little openness to sit down together and discuss how to address those concerns collaboratively.
I remain hopeful that we can yet reach that point where we will be able to hold conversations through the process laid out in the STOP Underrides Act for a Committee On Underride Protection. It holds the potential for cooperation, transparency, and accountability which could help us reach the goal of ending preventable death by underride in a timely fashion.
Meanwhile, because I have been unable to get them to participate in a meeting to discuss these concerns, I am going to share two documents here:
A letter which the American Trucking Associations emailed to Members of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee’s Highway & Transit Subcommittee on June 19, 2019, following the trucking hearing on June 12, 2019. The ATA letter outlines their concerns about, and opposition to, the STOP Underrides! Act. ATA Stop Underrides Act Follow Up Opposition Letter 6.19.19
May we allow nothing to interfere with reaching the goal of protecting all travelers from the unimaginable injuries and grief which all too often come about when we don’t equip our trucks with underride protection so that passenger vehicles and vulnerable road users cannot go under them.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair of the Highways & Transit Subcommittee, mentioned underride in her opening remarks (at 6:59 in this video):
Truck safety advocate, Andy Young, also talked about underride in both his written and verbal testimony to the Subcommittee members.
In this video excerpt, Chris Spear (ATA) makes a statement (at 1:09.48) in the hearing about his understanding that side guards have only been tested at 35 mph (not true):
Andy Young corrects that information (at 3:22.15 in the hearing video) and mentions that the AngelWing side guards have been successfully tested at the Second Underride Roundtable on August 29, 2017, at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) at 40 mph:
The AngelWing side guards have also been successfully tested elsewhere at 47.2 mph:
Congressman Steve Cohen, who led the way in the House when he re-introduced the STOP Underrides Act on March 5, 2019, also spoke about underride:
An underride accident is when a car slides under a large truck, making the windshield the first point of contact with the truck. These collisions are gruesome & all too often fatal. Mandating side &front underride guards could prevent these accidents & save lives. #StopUnderridespic.twitter.com/cPBY0HmHeS
The truth about truck underride should speak for itself. For too many decades, the facts have been hidden; motorists and vulnerable road users have not been adequately protected from becoming underride victims.
Enough is enough! Congress, the ball is in your court. It’s time to act.
