This post is from a recent demand for accountability from Care for Crash Victim’s Lou Lombardo entitled, “Seat Back Failures: Who Has The Power? & Who Has the Responsibility?”:
Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:
Please watch this excellent video and report by CBS News on Seat Back Failures.
The failures of both government and industry to protect the public from foreseeable tragedies – for decades – are described. See
The Center for Auto Safety has documented the efforts by citizens that were ignored over decades. Profits were placed ahead of people decade after decade. See
NHTSA Urged to Warn Parents of Seatback Collapse Dangers to Children in Rear Seats & How to Reduce Risk While Keeping Children in Rear
The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) today petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to “take action to protect children riding in the rear seats of vehicles from the risk of being killed or severely injured when struck by a collapsing front seatback in a rear-end crash.” The petition asks NHTSA to warn parents as follows:
If Possible, Children Should Be Placed In Rear Seating Positions Behind Unoccupied Front Seats. In Rear-End Crashes, The Backs Of Occupied Front Seats Are Prone To Collapse Under The Weight Of Their Occupants. If This Occurs, The Seat Backs And Their Occupants Can Strike Children In Rear Seats And Cause Severe Or Fatal Injuries
As the petition states, “The problem underlying the need for the warnings sought by petitioner is, of course, the poor performance of seatbacks in rear-end crashes, and of serious inadequacy of the federal motor vehicle standard, FMVSS 207, which specifies minimum seat and seatback crash performance levels.” Attached to the petition is a timeline, “Collapsing Seatbacks And Injury Causation: A Timeline Of Knowledge,” which summarizes “the history of manufacturer and NHTSA inaction to ensure that in rear-end crashes, front seats provide adequate protection not only for their occupants but for people in the rear seats behind them.”
Separately, the Center filed a detailed analysis of lawsuits, police reports and litigated cases that shows the dangers of seat back collapse are far greater than what the agency recognizes because seat back collapse is not captured by the FARS database on which the agency has relied for all too long to deny there is a seatback collapse danger. FARS does not provide any information on seat back collapse. Out of 64 seat back collapse death and injury crashes, the Center only found 2 where the police report referenced seat back collapse.
For many years NHTSA has urged parents to place children in the rear seats of cars because of the risk that in the front seat, they might be injured by inflating airbags in frontal crashes. But the “unintended consequences” of this policy, the petition notes, has been to “expose them to another kind of hazard – that of being struck or crushed when the back of a front seat occupied by an adult collapses rearward… Until cars on the American highway are equipped with adequately strong front seats and seatbacks, children in rear seats behind occupied front seats will continue to be in danger of death or severe injury from front seatback failures in rear-end impacts.”
The petition reports on the results of an analysis of NHTSA data by Friedman Research Corp. Done at the Center’s request, the analysis shows that over the twenty-four year period 1990-2014, nearly 900 children seated behind a front-seat occupant or in a center rear seat died in rear impacts of 1990 and later model-year cars.
As the Timeline shows, NHTSA has frequently been alerted to the hazards of weak designs and inadequate federal performance standards for seats and seatbacks. “Papers published by the Society of Automotive Engineers as early as 1967 described the need for adequate of front-seat crashworthiness in graphic and alarming terms. A poorly designed car seat ‘becomes an injury-producing agency during collision,’ said one. Another stated, ‘…a weak seatback is not recognized as an acceptable solution for motorist protection from rear end collisions.’”
In 1974, the petition notes, NHTSA announced its intention to develop a new standard “covering the total seating system” and requiring dynamic rear-impact crash testing. But thirty years later, in 2004, it abandoned the plan, saying it needed “additional research and data analysis” and leaving in place the woefully weak requirements of FMVSS 207, a standard which has not been upgraded since its adoption in 1967. In a research study of 30-mph rear crashes done one year earlier which is not cited in the rulemaking termination, NHTSA researchers warned of the danger to children placed in rear seats at NHTSA’s recommendation. “Further, fatalities and injuries to rear child occupants due to seat back collapse of the front seat in rear impacts have also been reported. This is especially of concern since NHTSA recommends to the public that children of age 12 and under should be placed in the rear seat.”
In its conclusion, the petition states that warning parents of the hazards of front seatback collapse to children in rear seat is an essential measure “made necessary by the continued absence of a federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring that cars be equipped with adequately protective front seats.” The agency “can take most of the requested steps on its own, without time-consuming rulemaking, and should do so promptly,” the petition notes.
I am having a difficult time getting this post started. I shared about it briefly here and Russell Mokhiber graciously shared our story as well. Now I want to give a more in-depth report of our trip to Washington, DC, on March 3 and 4 to deliver over 20,000 Vision Zero Petitions. I want to be able to report that I am hopeful about the impact of our Vision Zero Petition. But I am mostly frustrated and angry.
There were some encouraging meetings with legislative offices. But there were no commitments, no promises of action to be taken. Traffic safety is not high on their list of priorities. And, despite the almost 33,000 traffic crash deaths in our country each year, Traffic Safety/Vision Zero is not even on the list of Issues on whitehouse.gov.
During our time in Washington, after sharing the story of our crash time after time, we got into a discussion with someone who has observed and testified about the underride crash problem countless times. We actually ended up, as a result, getting hold of some photos of the underride guard which failed to guard our car from riding under the trailer in front of us when another truck hit us and spun us around and hit us again backwards into that truck. We had not previously seen those photos.
And they were disturbing–adding fuel to the fire of my frustration at the utter lack of genuine responsibility on anyone’s part to protect us from Death by Underride. And that includes the three branches of our government: Legislative; Executive/Administrative; and Judicial.
In fact, while we were in Washington on March 3 and 4, we made the rounds of the Legislative branch–visiting with Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) as well as staff of several other legislators. I am not putting much stock in them taking immediate positive action to advance traffic safety. But we have knocked on those doors and appreciate the time they took to listen to us. We will continue to follow up with our contacts and ask them to stand up with us for safety.
Additionally, we have petitioned the Executive branch–both through President Obama and the White House, as well as the administrative arm of DOT/NHTSA. Though, of course, I think that the problem needs to be addressed inter-departmentally to acknowledge and address traffic fatalities and serious injuries as a public health and labor problem, as well as transportation, through a White House Vision Zero Task Force.
We delivered the 20,000+ Vision Zero Petition signatures both in the form of the Vision Zero Petition Book to each DOT policy official with whom we met and via a binder with all of the signatures and the letter to Secretary Foxx (the latter printed for us by the Care2 Petition Site).
Director Donovan, Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
Secretary Foxx, Department of Transportation
Administrator Rosekind, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Administrator Darling, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
With President Obama’s copy of the Vision Zero Petition Book, we enclosed a letter which our granddaughter had decided that she wanted to write to the president when she saw the stack of books at our house and asked what we were going to do with them. Here is her letter (dictated to me):
(I thought it was interesting that Vanessa’s drawings of her aunts had no mouths. In fact, it is all-too-true that they cannot speak up on their own behalf. Also, she wanted to see photos of AnnaLeah and Mary to make sure that she got their hair and eye color correct.)
We talked with DOT policy officials about our petition in which we pleaded, along with over 20,000 other individuals, that they address the extensive traffic safety and public health problem of crash fatalities and serious injuries. At an average of 33,000 crash deaths each year, Death by Motor Vehicle is one of the leading causes of death. We requested that they adopt a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy and that they seek such authority from the White House through action from President Obama, whom we are asking to:
Set a National Vision Zero Goal.
Establish a White House Vision Zero Task Force to guide us in achieving that goal as a nation.
Sign a Vision Zero Executive Order to ensure that DOT can adopt Vision Zero rulemaking policies, which would allow them to issue and enforce rules and safety standards that genuinely protect human life.
Blair Anderson, Byron Bloch, Andy Young, Bryna Helfer, Jerry Karth, Marianne Karth, John Lannen, Isaac Karth
Included in our Petition Letter to Secretary Foxx was our request that they apply such a rulemaking policy specifically in two ways–which will address two safety problems of particular concern to us, as well as set the stage for more effectively addressing countless other traffic safety issues. These are the three petition requests:
1. Change rulemaking policy to move away from a cost/benefit model and adopt a more humanistic, rational Vision Zero safety strategy model which will impact all DOT safety regulations;
2. Apply Vision Zero principles initiating rulemaking to require forward collision avoidance and mitigation braking on all new large trucks; and
3. Apply Vision Zero principles by requiring crash test-based performance standards for truck side and rear underride guards.
Due to the circumstances of our crash, we have a particular interest in promoting the improvement of underride protection on trucks so that–upon the collision of a smaller vehicle with a truck–the geometrical mismatch of the two does not lead to the smaller vehicle riding under the truck so that the truck itself intrudes into the passengers’ survivable space. In simple terms, our goal is to bring an end to what should be survivable crashes but which all-too-often lead to horrific injuries and tragic death.
It is our observation and conclusion, based upon investigation into the facts that, whether DOT is actually hampered by a previous Executive Order (12866) or merely assumed to be so, NHTSA generally issues rules that are less stringent than what existing technology has shown to be possible (read that: weak and ineffective).
It was for that reason that we have petitioned for a Vision Zero Executive Order and specifically discussed with DOT policy officials, on March 4, 2016, the preferable means of analyzing the pros and cons of a proposed rule through Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) vs the more-commonly used Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)–which assigns an economic value to human life.
At least it appeared to me that DOT intends to keep their promise to deliver the Petition Books for us. At the end of our meeting, they asked me to sign each book with a personal message to the recipient. I gladly did so, asking them to consider our petition for the sake of AnnaLeah and Mary.
Speaking of AnnaLeah and Mary. . . this gets me back to my earlier reference to our particular crash, which was, of course, due to the failure (for whatever reason) of a truck driver to maintain lane and hitting our car so that it went backwards under another truck. Because the underride guard failed to do its intended job, Mary and AnnaLeah 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.
Yet, 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 have been reminded of that unfortunate reality again this week 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.
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 the best possible protection.
We have worked with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and the Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) to bring all interested parties together in an Underride Roundtable this Spring when, on May 5, 2016, we will attempt to cooperatively address this problem–for the sake of all travelers–in memory of those who have already lost their lives needlessly and for those of us who are vulnerable to being the next potential victim of a “roving guillotine.”
In fact, when we were in Washington this week, we met at IIHS with some of the members of the planning group for the Underride Roundtable (Russ Rader, IIHS; John Lannen, TSC, Andy Young, truck litigation attorney/truck driver/truck company owner; Jerry, Isaac, and myself)–taking the opportunity to get some work done in person. One of the ideas, which we were throwing around when brainstorming about how to shape our Panel Discussion, was the need for creating Best Practices for Underride Protection and re-visiting the issue on an ongoing basis.
Byron Bloch had joined us for the meeting. One suggestion he made, during our Roundtable planning meeting, was that IIHS, who is well-known for that crash rating safety program for the automotive industry, develop a 5-Star Crash Rating Program for truck/trailer manufacturers as well.
That idea has grabbed our attention. After all, the IIHS crash testing of various major trailer manufacturers prior to our crash and continuing in the years following, was a source of revelation to us about the extent of the underride problem and the reality that it was/is a solvable problem.
Furthermore, as I continue to observe the crash testing of passenger vehicles, no matter how safe those vehicles are manufactured, their crashworthiness features are compromised and prevented from going into action when the vehicle collides with a larger vehicle and rides under it. In other words, auto safety improvements are compromised due to a truck safety flaw.
How about a cycle be set up–Jerry suggested this morning–for crash testing of trucks/trailers to assess the success of advances in underride protection? This would provide a means of reliable, comparative, and ongoing feedback to the manufacturers, as well as the buyers of trailers and single unit trucks, government officials, researcher engineers, safety advocates, attorneys, crash reconstructionists, injury prevention specialists, and travelers on the road.
I ask the question again: How will we address this problem of Death by Underride?
Due to the complexity of the issue, no one is currently held accountable, responsible, or liable for preventing these deaths which occur upon collision of a passenger vehicle with a larger commercial motor vehicle. Remember, we are not talking here about who was to blame for the collision occurring in the first place.
Can we possibly find our way to work together in our great nation through the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of our government–in a cooperative, concerted effort with private industry, research engineers, safety advocates, and the insurance industry– to bring about the best possible protection for We the People?
Can we agree to share the costs of what the solution will require so that the burden of the problem is shifted from the victims, who experience life needlessly cut short or devastatingly changed by horrific injuries, and their families who are faced with unexpected, traumatic, too-often-bitter, and unending grief?
Right this minute, I must admit, I am discouraged right along with the many others who have tried to bring about change for decades. Nonetheless, I choose to remain hopeful that this is not insurmountable and that we are well on our way to victory as we continue to shed light on traffic safety problems and call for truth, justice, and mercy to prevail.
Jerry, Marianne, and Isaac in front of DOTAndy Young, Marianne Karth, Jerry Karth, John Lannen
(Note: All viewpoints expressed above are mine alone and are not meant to imply agreement by any individuals who may have been mentioned. Whether the analysis of the issues at hand are accurate–or unfairly tainted by the emotions of this grieving mother–are left to the reader to ferret out. Marianne Karth, March 6, 2016)
Does a vehicle manufacturer bear responsibility for death and injury caused by a safety defect in their product:
ever?
and, especially do they do so when it is publicly known (in the engineering realm) that there is a solution to the problem which could — if implemented — prevent death and horrific injury?
Or, are they protected by following the letter of the law — which likewise might have been negligent to require the best possible protection?
Furthermore, if they do bear responsibility, then what price should they pay for negligence to act on that knowledge in a timely fashion?
I have been trying to look at it every which way and not merely as the mother of two daughters, AnnaLeah (forever 17) and Mary (forever 13), who happened to get killed by a truck underride crash in which the underride guard met current federal standards, and possibly even the Canadian standards, but did not make use of safer known technology and did not withstand the crash.
I am plagued by so many questions:
Did the manufacturer’s act of omission contribute to Mary’s and AnnaLeah’s deaths? (omission: http://tinyurl.com/o2z6meb )
If so, why are they not being held responsible for such a heinous action? (heinous: http://tinyurl.com/ncak6o2 )
What consequences should they pay for their negligence?
Is the manufacturer excused from responsibility for their deaths because it was not technically illegal (they abided by the letter of the law)?
If current and future research shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that safer underride prevention systems can, in fact, be put in place on trucks, can truck manufacturers be freed from responsibility to implement such technology due to supposed “unreasonable” costs? (A frequent reason for less-than-adequate rules to be issued — if issued at all.)
Do informed regulators who do not write into law the safest possible technology bear any responsibility?
Do informed truck purchasers who do not buy trucks with the safest possible technology (even if not required by law) bear responsibility?
I even have to ask myself if I am taking the chance of sabotaging our goal of seeking stronger federal standards by raising these controversial, potentially-inflammatory questions.
So you see, I am not struggling with easy questions. But you have to admit, don’t you, that they are questions with life & death implications.
This question of manufacturer criminal liability is addressed in a New York Times editorial today (July 21, 2015):
“The Senate bill also falls well short of addressing important issues raised by recent scandals involving defects in General Motors’ ignition switches and Takata airbags. While it would raise the maximum fine that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can levy against automakers that do not promptly disclose defects to $70 million from $35 million, that increase is a pittance for companies that make billions in profits. And by not proposing criminal liability for executives who knowingly hide the life-threatening dangers of their products, the bill simply sidesteps the issue of individual accountability.”
From my morning reading: “The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice. The Law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip.” Psalm 37:30-31
