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.

Of course, maybe the attorney is referring to the fact that none of the trailer manufacturers have a side guard “on the market” — despite the fact that DOT encouraged them to do so in 1970 (Exhibit 7 – 1970 gov’t req. for industry to develop side underride 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.

“You can’t force Utility to put a dangerous item on its trailers,” he said.  Parents hope verdict ‘a catalyst for change’

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:

1. Either he was misquoted by the reporters;
2. Or he was very misinformed;
3. 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?