Category Archives: Truck Safety

Do “at-fault” victims deserve Death Sentence? Underride issues deserve to be clarified.

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety,

Jerry and I were talking this morning. He had this question. . . even if an underride crash victim is at fault for the crash occurring, don’t they deserve a second chance at life? Do we really approve of an unnecessary/preventable death sentence for their mistake?

For the most part, from what I can see, victims of truck underride crashes, are the ones who bear the brunt of the problem. Even if some of them might be the cause of the crash occurring in the first place, do they not deserve a second chance to make up for their mistake?

Are we unwilling to pay to protect them from the second deadly collision which occurs due to inadequate or non-existent underride guards? Or is the Death by Underride Sentence —  meted out to them by the regulators and manufacturers —  acceptable to society?

Does a driver of a passenger vehicle get the punishment of a Death Sentence for rear-ending another passenger vehicle? Should they? Well, that’s basically what often happens when a car rear-ends a truck.

Each time a layer of apparent deception is peeled away, I am incensed at what seems like betrayal.

I just found out about a case, in 2000, where a Texas jury found “a trailer defective for not being equipped with side underride guards. Stated another way, a jury has now said manufacturers should equip trailers with something that the government does not require and the customer does not want.”

This article also states, “Between 1953 and 1998, when the current rear underride requirements were implemented, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) studied the issue multiple times. One of the questions that needed to be addressed was the potential benefit of such a device. In announcing that rear underride (but not side underride) would be required on trailers, NHTSA estimated that rear guards would save between nine and 19 lives per year (The Federal Register, Jan 24, 1996). How many lives would a side underride guard save annually? We don’t know, but accident research statistics indicate the incidence of side underride is substantially lower than rear impacts.”

The article also commented on the dilemma which the trailer manufacturers found themselves in:

  • “Trailer manufacturers take seriously their responsibility to put safe products on the roadways. But after this verdict, we wonder if they are feeling as trapped as a cardboard ballot on Election Day. Only time will tell if the industry is really stuck or if this case is just a dimpled chad.”
  • “In the absence of a federal regulation mandating side underride guards, trailer manufacturers are going to find it extremely difficult to produce a trailer that the Laredo jury would not consider defective.”

According to the article,

To sell a trailer equipped with side underride guards, a trailer salesperson would have to accomplish the following:

– Convince the customer the safety benefits would be worth perhaps an additional $1,000 cost per trailer and an increase in tare weight of between 800 and 1,000 pounds.

– Keep the customer from thinking in terms of how competitive trucking is today and that such a cost or weight penalty would put him at a competitive disadvantage.

– Prove that the height of the guard is just right – low enough to keep out cars and high enough to clear railroad crossings and other obstructions.

– Show that the guard is strong – but not too strong. NHTSA rear underride research in the 1970s concluded rear guards should absorb energy by being weak enough to yield – yet strong enough to stop the car. But we can’t simply apply the rear underride requirements to a side guard because crash dynamics of side underride are completely different from rear impacts. Should the guard be strong enough to withstand glancing blows as was the case in the Maravilla accident, or must it absorb the full impact of a broadside crash at a highway intersection? This is a key point since there are no objective standards, and juries have the right to second-guess engineers and federal regulators.[Note: See my posts on the topic of SIDE GUARDS–Side Guard Posts]

– Point out that maintenance of guards hung along the length of the trailer will be no problem.

– Demonstrate how the side underride guard can coexist with sliding tandems. Prove that it will not create a safety hazard by interfering with routine brake inspections and maintenance, tire replacement, or landing gear operation.

Did I read that right? Convince the customer the safety benefits would be worth perhaps an additional $1,000 cost per trailer. . .  Here we go again, Profit takes Priority over Human Life.

Somehow I can’t seem to feel sorry for them because I know that their problems can be resolved. I hope that they will listen to what is discussed at the Underride Roundtable; it might just help them out of a hard spot. Win/Win.

The National Transportation Safety Board stated this in 2014: “Collisions with the sides of tractor-trailers resulted in about 500 deaths each year and that many of these deaths involved side underride.” NTSB Issues Recommendations to Correct Safety Vulnerabilities Involving Tractor-Trailers

And here is another case from 2006,

Lead counsel Chip Ferguson stated, “The Jury in this case has sent a strong message by rendering the largest verdict ever in this type of case.  They not only found that the Lufkin Industries’ trailer was defective but they also found that the United States government’s safety regulations were inadequate to protect the public from an unreasonable risk of injury and death.  This verdict mandates that both industry and the government fix the problem, and make our roads safer.”  Noting that trailer manufacturing is a multi-billion dollar industry, Ferguson added, “We have an industry that creates $10 billion every year in revenues.  It is time for them to use those resources for something other than lobbying and politicking.  It is time for them to pool those resources to make us safer.”

Co-counsel Chris Coco added, “Lufkin Industries and the entire trailer manufacturing industry knew about the dangers of side under-rides for decades.  Rather than testing and developing solutions, they chose to ignore it, to do nothing.  They used their influence to purchase de-regulation, all at the expense of victims like Kelleigh Falcon.  Her life was ruined because of this.  Her family was torn to shreds because of this.  Lufkin Industries, the entire industry and our government all have her blood on their hands.  It is time for them to clean up this mess.”

And here is a third case, which seems to support the legal obligation of trailer manufacturers to protect occupants of other vehicles which collide with them:

  • Background. Maribel Quilez-Bonelli (Quilez) was killed when the hood of her 2004 Jeep Liberty under-rode a dump truck that was stopped in the left lane of an expressway while municipal employees did maintenance work in the area. Quilez apparently realized at the last minute that the truck ahead of her was not moving and she swerved to avoid a collision. However, the driver’s side of her Jeep impacted the truck and the truck’s bumper penetrated the driver’s side roof and windshield of the Jeep, striking Quilez in the face and head. Relatives of Quilez filed a product liability action against Ox Bodies, Inc. and Truck Bodies & Equipment Int’l, Inc., the companies that designed and manufactured the dump body of the truck, claiming that the company failed to properly design or manufacturer the dump truck’s rear guard. The defendants moved for summary judgment or judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the crashworthiness doctrine did not apply in Puerto Rico and that Quilez’s negligent design claim was barred by Puerto Rico law.
  • The court then explained that Larsen has been interpreted to mean that manufacturers must be held to a reasonable duty of care in the design of their vehicles in accordance with the state of the art to minimize the effects of the foreseeable hazards of collisions and impacts. The court noted that rear-end collisions are common and the danger of under-ride accidents was well known to truck manufacturers and had been for decades.. . .The better rule, according to the court, and the one favored by the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability was to hold manufacturers to a reasonable duty of care in the design of rear bumpers so as to minimize the effects of accidents to those who collide with its vehicles.
  • Given that foreseeability is the “linchpin” for determining duty in a negligence claim and having determined as part of the crashworthiness analysis that accidents involving other vehicles were foreseeable, the court could not determine, as a matter of law, that Quilez’s negligent design claim was barred by Puerto Rico law.

If cases like these have had favorable outcomes for the plaintiffs, then why have they not made a noticeable impact on the regulation and manufacture of truck underride guards? That is what I would like to know.

 

Aaron Kiefer underride design prototype photo
Aaron Kiefer Side Guard Design Prototype

 

End Driver Fatigue: Illinois State Police conduct 1650+ truck inspections during “OPERATION SAUTER”

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

Motor vehicle inspections should be done this thoroughly on a regular basis–not just one day. Monitoring and enforcement plays a big role in preventing crashes due to truck driver fatigue–an ongoing problem. Illinois State Police conduct over 1650 inspections during “OPERATION SAUTER”

And it should be done in every state. Why on earth don’t we establish National Traffic Safety Standards & require them to be adopted by States?

Driving While Fatigued

Each time a layer of apparent deception is peeled away, I am incensed at what seems like betrayal.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

Our particular crash was, of course, due to the failure (for whatever reason) of a truck driver to maintain lane and hitting our car so that we went backwards under another truck. I, and my son in the front seat with me, survived that crash. But, because the underride guard failed to do its intended job, Mary and AnnaLeah (in the backseat) experienced an untimely and unnatural end to their lives.

My question is: Should someone be held accountable for the failure of that federally-required piece of equipment which resulted in two deaths? Is the manufacturer liable to prevent someone from being killed when they collide with a truck? And, mind you, expecting them to do so would not be some pie-in-the-sky kind of expectation. It has been proven that protection is possible from much worse circumstances than are currently required.

Every time another layer of apparent deception is peeled away, I am incensed anew at what seems like betrayal.  How many times have decisions been made over a span of decades that have deliberately blocked a strengthening of protection against truck underride? How many people have looked the other way? Surely this is not just a case of ignorance on the part of all persons involved.

The Judicial third branch of the government has provided little hope for ensuring that the truck/trailer manufacturer will be held responsible for the failure of their product, upon collision with it, to prevent horrible, unnecessary death. I was reminded of that unfortunate reality again, when we were in Washington to deliver the Vision Zero Petition, as the topic came up again related to our crash.

In fact, upon a simple search of the internet, I found this example of the difficulty of pinning liability upon the manufacturer:

Defendant . . . avers that despite the truth of these facts, it owed no duty to persons such as plaintiff’s decedent who crash into the rear of its trailers. . . . maintains that there is no duty to design, manufacture and sell a trailer which is “accident-proof” that is, able to protect “invaders” or “trespassers” who run into the trailer and later seek legal redress  U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama – 816 F. Supp. 1525 (M.D. Ala. 1993) March 26, 1993.

What?! So there you have it. At least some manufacturers are willing to fight for their right to avoid ethical responsibility for designing their product to be safe to travel around.

Few have been able to bring about a successful judgment against manufacturers, although some have tried: See Beattie v. Lindelof, 633 N.E.2d 1227 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994); Mieher v. Brown, 301 N.E.2d 307 (Ill. 1973), but cf. Harris v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 234 F.3d 398 (8th Cir. 2000) (Arkansas law); Buzzard v. Roadrunner Trucking, Inc., 966 F.2d 777 (3d Cir. 1992) (Pennsylvania law); Rivers v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 816 F. Supp. 1525 (M.D. Ala. 1993);Worldwide Equipment, Inc., v. Mullins, 11 S.W.3d 50 (Ky. Ct. App. 1999); Detillier v. Sullivan, 714 So.2d 244 (La. Ct. App. 1998); Quay v. Crawford, 788 So.2d 76 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001);Garcia v. Rivera, 553 N.Y.S.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990); Hagan v. Gemstate Mfg., Inc., 982 P.2d 1108 (Or. 1999); Great Dane Trailers, Inc. v. Wells, 52 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. 2001).

In one case, a court reasoned that:

the manufacturer is obliged to secure the occupants of only its vehicle from that foreseeable harm: the manufacturer does not owe a duty to protect those who collide with its vehicle. See Mieher, 301 N.E.2d at 308-10; but see id. at 310-11 (Goldenhersh, J. dissenting) (arguing that the duty of care should extend to prevent unreasonable risk to occupants, other drivers, and pedestrians).

In my mind, the question remains: Does the manufacturer owe travelers on the road the duty to exercise reasonable care in designing its motor vehicle?

One author takes a look at this question:

Does a vehicle manufacturer owe a duty to design a vehicle with which it is safe to collide? The Illinois Supreme Court said no in the case of an underride accident, where one vehicle rear-ended a truck and proceeded unimpeded under its bed. The decision unleashed an ongoing debate over the concept of “enhanced injury,” where a manufacturer can be liable for defects in its vehicle that cause injuries over and above those that would have occurred from the accident but for a defective design. Illinois vehicle manufacturers have no duty to protect non-occupants who collide with their vehicles

As it stands, it appears to me that, in general, the manufacturing community is prone to protect themselves from legal impunity rather than protect travelers on the road. I would welcome the opportunity to hear differently.

So, how then do we bring about a more responsible solution to this solvable underride problem? In addition to considering how we might impact each of the three branches of our government, we have also sought for, and encouraged, voluntary action on the part of truck/trailer manufacturers–which has met with some limited success. For the most part, the manufacturers tend to take a wait-and-see attitude–particularly when NHTSA is in the midst of rulemaking–rather than take the initiative to simply go ahead and design a guard which is capable of preventing deadly underride in real life crashes.

I am thankful for the upcoming Underride Roundtable because these questions need to be addressed, once and for all. And I, for one, am unwilling to sit by and watch another underride rule be compromised so that travelers on the road continue to unwittingly play a game wherein too many people will inevitably be dealt a card with a Death by Underride sentence written all over it.

I hope that, this time around, the truth of the matter will be fully revealed and all will agree upon a comprehensive solution which offers the best possible protection. I don’t want any more people to needlessly lose their lives or suffer the unrelenting grief (complicated by anger and helpless frustration) which families like mine undergo.

31 Picture 54647 Mary's braids 006

What kind of underride protection would be the result of Vision Zero Rulemaking?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

What kind of underride protection would be the result of a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy? I would like the chance to find out!

Do it, President Obama, for We the People of this United States of America! #VisionZero

Underride kills

Regulators, manufacturers, & advocates need to read this engineer’s comment on truck underride.

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Take note of a recent public comment on NHTSA’s truck underride rulemaking:

Comment_from_Seven_Hills_Engineering,_LLC

Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 1Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 2Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 3

Perry Ponder from Seven Hills Engineering makes some timely observations. Anyone concerned about preventing deadly underride crashes will want to make sure that regulators and manufacturers are listening.

Here is the 1969 DOT document to which Perry refers–in which they indicate their intent to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles: 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2 p.2

Looking forward to a lively Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016.

2

What kind of underride protection would be the result of a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy?

 

My grandson–all on his own–has figured out some things that might have saved his aunts.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

On the way home today, there was an electronic sign on I-540 letting us know that there was a crash near the exit we would be taking and that we should take an earlier exit, Actually, there were two signs–one a few miles before the alternate route to avoid the traffic back-up and then another one right before the detour.

After we got back home and were talking about it at supper, in the midst of grown-up voices, my 9 year-old grandson said that one of those signs might have helped. I said, “When?” He said, “At the crash with Mary and AnnaLeah.” I said, “Yes, it could have.”

If only there had been a sign on May 4, 2013 on I-20 in Georgia warning traffic about a crash ahead, then a certain truck driver might have been alerted enough to pay attention and notice the traffic back-up in time to slow down and not hit our car. Or we might have been diverted off that route and never been in  that situation. In both scenarios, AnnaLeah and Mary would likely still be with us today.

I’m hoping that people in this country, who can do something about it, will figure out what my grandson has — that things can be done to protect us better. And that they’ll do their part to make it happen. Less preventable deaths & serious injuries. Less grief to bear.

Trip North May 2015 030 smaller

“Our grandma wants to make the roads safer.” Remembering 2 girls in the aftermath of a truck crash

 

“What two fleets are doing to retain drivers”

Truck Safety

What two fleets are doing to retain drivers

. . . Brian Helton, Mercer’s marketing and media relations manager, said the biggest issue among drivers he sees is that they need more time to spend with their families.

In an effort to meet the needs of its drivers, Mercer started a mentoring program to share knowledge and training practices. Corum explained the program began a year ago as a way to provide drivers with mentors and more resources.

“If the drivers feel like we’re trying, that we heard their voice, that means a lot,” Corum said. “So we keep our ears to the ground. Mentoring is about sharing knowledge and we know it’s making a difference.”

Corum added that the company is expanding more into dry vans – it’s got 600 operating now and looking at potentially establishing a trailer pool. Many of its drivers are more open to dry van work, and because flatbed work is so physically demanding, Corum explained going to dry van allows drivers to work three or five more years before retiring.

Another big challenge Corum mentioned is figuring out how to help owner operators keep up with new rules and regulations, getting them to use new technology like ELDs, and providing them with safety training. He said Mercer is receiving some pushback from drivers regarding ELDs, but the company is mandating their use by July 1 this year.

Trip North May 2015 044

Somebody has to take personal responsibility & be accountable for the danger of the trucking industry.

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , , , ,

“At some point, somebody has to take personal responsibility & be accountable for the danger of this industry. More truck drivers are killed on the job than any other occupation. More than 500 truck drivers are killed every year in truck crashes. . . I don’t know any other industry where that’s allowed .  .  . and people are looking the other way.

“We need to have this prosecuted at the industry or company level, because that’s where the problem lies. . . The industry drives them harder and longer than they should. The result is catastrophic death and injury all across the country

“If we could get a change in some of the laws. . . to the point where company executives are criminally responsible for the violations of their drivers’ Hours of Service, you would see a lot of things change in the industry. You might see some changes that are long overdue,”  says Jeff Burns, Truck Litigation Attorney.

Jeff Burns, National Transportation Counsel for the Truck Safety Coaltion, discusses the issue of truck crash prosecutions and the challenges facing victims of truck crashes. Prosecutors across the country are choosing not to prosecute those responsible for deadly truck crashes. Furthermore, drivers and companies are facing only minimal fines, much less than a speeding motorist, for reckless driving that results in an accident and/or death. Visit www.trucksafety.org for more information on how you can help in the fight to make our highways safer for everyone. June 14, 2011

Some previous posts which I have written on the issues of justice related to truck crashes:

Responsibility

 

“NHTSA: Driverless, Directionless in DC”; A National Vision Zero Goal can move us in the right direction.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

Tonight I just happened to find a great article written by Roger Lanctot on the topic of driverless vehicles and crash avoidance and other good things like that. He said it with much more technical expertise than I ever could. Read it here: NHTSA: Driverless, Directionless in DC

Voices clash at first public hearing on self-driving cars

Thank you, Roger, for clarifying the issues and throwing out a challenge. Let’s hope that we as a nation can take up that challenge in a wise and timely fashion.

Here we have the opportunity to pull together the creative intelligence and technological resources of our country. Will we be able to look back, in years to come, with gratitude for being able to plan ahead in a non-competitive way to develop a workforce which creates useful products–all the while protecting health and life?

Here’s my idea–in keeping with Roger’s suggestion of a Vision Zero objective related to this technological challenge. Let’s say that a Vision Zero objective would mean that the guiding light/the plumbline would be a continual focus on safety–always asking the question at each step along the way, “How will this impact safety?”

And how would this be accomplished? By President Obama setting a National Vision Zero Goal–because who else would do it? It is an issue much broader than the Department of Transportation–and should include Labor, Commerce, Public Health, among others.

And then President Obama needs to establish a White House Vision Zero Task Force with Committees made up of resourceful people to take up challenges such as Roger Lanctot has suggested: “the development and adoption of technology that could start reducing the alarmingly high rate of crash-related injuries and fatalities in the U.S. and abroad – while also stimulating the economy and ultimately reducing the cost of vehicle ownership – or possibly eliminating vehicle ownership.”

Finally, President Obama needs to sign a Vision Zero Executive Order which will pave the way for rulemaking to actually make safety The Priority and other priorities would then fall in place subsequent to saving lives.

Can you imagine how effective and efficient such a process could be? Working together toward a common goal for the common good. Making good use of our resources and skills to meet needs.

Towards Zero Crash Deaths & Serious Injuries. A vision worth pursuing, a guiding light to keep us on track. Let’s do it, people.

What will it take to make a significant reduction in the number of people who die on our roads?

Andy Young, Marianne Karth, Jerry Karth, John Lannen
Andy Young, Marianne Karth, Jerry Karth, John Lannen in front of the DOT, March 5, 2016, delivering the 20,000 Vision Zero Petition Signatures

Save Lives Not Dollars: Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy

Adopt a Vision Zero goal and sign an Executive Order to Save Lives Not Dollars

We need the “Leverage” team to fight corporate & governmental injustices of preventable crash deaths.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

My kids introduced me to Leverage a few weeks ago. So, lately, my husband and I have been watching episodes of the program nightly with them.

This is a description of the television series: Leverage is an American television drama series, which aired on TNT from December 7, 2008, to December 25, 2012.[2] The series was produced by Electric Entertainment, a production company of executive producer and director Dean Devlin. Leverage follows a five-person team: a thief, a grifter, a hacker, and a retrieval specialist, led by former insurance investigator Nathan Ford, who uses their skills to fight corporate and governmental injustices inflicted on ordinary citizens.

Last night, after watching a couple of episodes, I was thinking about our nation’s careless negligence of, and seeming indifference to, the senseless, preventable crash deaths which occur every day. It made me wish that the Leverage team could join us in taking on the hard-to-pin-down conglomeration of traffic safety factors*–many of which could be overcome or prevented and which result in the devastation of individual and family lives. Changed forever. No coming back.

*Underride crashes are a prime example of a problem which can be solved, but for which no one has truly been held responsible/liable/accountable for decades.

Mary (13) wrote a letter to herself a few weeks before the crash that took her life. She intended to read her letter 10 years later in 2023. One of the things she wrote was that she hoped to be famous someday; she didn’t know how, she just did.
 
A Leverage movie drawing attention to the widespread problem of traffic safety deaths (especially due to manufacturing defects) could highlight Mary’s and her sister AnnaLeah’s untimely end to their lives. And she would get her wish.

@DeanDevlin

Timothy Hutton, Gina Bellman, Christian Kane, Beth Riesgraf, and Aldis Hodge

Dear Leverage team,

I am asking you to champion a National Vision Zero Goal and Strategy to reduce crash deaths and serious injuries. Traffic safety is of great interest to me following the deaths of my two youngest daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13), due to a truck underride crash on May 4, 2013.

My kids introduced me to Leverage a few weeks ago. So my husband and I have been watching it nightly with them. Last night, when I was getting ready for bed, I was thinking as usual about the frustrations of corporate negligence and indifference to the senseless, preventable crash deaths which occur every day. It made me wish that your Leverage team could join us in taking on the Goliath which ignores the problem and perpetuates the devastating impact on individual and family lives.

Since our horrific crash, my family and I have become vocal advocates for highway safety improvement, including a petition signed by 11,000+ people which we took to DC on May 5, 2014. Following that meeting with NHTSA and FMCSA, a rulemaking was initiated in July 2014 to study the need to improve rear underride protection on tractor-trailers, as well as additional proposed rulemaking in July 2015 for underride protection on Single Unit Trucks.

We are not stopping at that but are collaborating with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Truck Safety Coalition to plan an Underride Roundtable to be held at the IIHS’s crash testing facility in Ruckersville, Virginia, on May 5, 2016. We hope that by bringing together the trucking industry, regulatory officials, law enforcement, attorneys, truckers, engineers, and safety advocates, we can bring about more effective underride protection. https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/underride-roundtable-save-the-date-may-5-2016/

In addition, we believe that it is not enough to seek improvement through rulemaking but that there needs to be an overhaul of how rulemaking is handled. In light of that, we have launched a Vision Zero Petition online to request that DOT/OIRA approach highway safety rulemaking with a Vision Zero policy. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Furthermore, we think that the regulatory approach to highway safety rules should not be strangled by cost/benefit restraints that hold up human life and health dollar for dollar against corporate profit and economic stability. That is why we are asking you to back our petition to President Obama for a Vision Zero Executive Order which would modify President Clinton’s Executive Order 12866 and pave the way for stronger safety measures to be established in a more timely manner.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience if this is a cause which you can champion.

In memory of AnnaLeah & Mary–who occupy our thoughts daily,

Marianne Karth

https://annaleahmary.com/

Rebekah photo of crash

Contact me at: marianne@annaleahmary.com

Safety is not a priority 002Who are no more with photo

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not looking for vengeance or ruin. I’m looking for justice  — for accountability in matters of personal and corporate actions which can make the difference between life and death for someone and can ravage someone else’s life. . . forever.

Nothing will ever, ever bring AnnaLeah and Mary back in this life. No way, can’t happen. Not in this life, but only in the life to come. (Hang in there.) And that hurts so freakin’ bad. Every single day.

But I know that more, much more, can be done to ensure that other people don’t go through the same (and thankfully they will never really realize it). And there are forces that are working against our attempts to  truly make saving lives matter more than saving money. Hard to believe, right?

Whereas I feel powerless right now to bring about lasting, far-reaching change, I know that it does not depend on me. And so I am hoping that all the right pieces will fall in place at the right time to open eyes to the truth and a better way to protect ourselves and our families.