Seat belts play a central role in protecting motor vehicle occupants during accidents. And mandatory seat belt usage laws have fortunately greatly increased the number of Americans currently wearing seatbelts. Yet for every five people killed in motor vehicle accidents in the U.S., three would have survived had they been wearing their seat belts.
During an accident, seat belts restrain the occupants and prevent them from being ejected from the vehicle. They also provide a controlled “ride down” of the violent forces acting on a motor vehicle's occupants during a collision.
But if a seatbelt is not properly worn, or if it, or any of its components fail during an accident, serious injuries and death are likelier to result. And while seat belts should always be worn in a motor vehicle, in rare cases a defective seat belt can exacerbate or even be the cause of injuries during an accident.
In any event, we count on seatbelts to provide us with a certain measure of protection during an auto accident. A seat belt that fails to do so because of a design or manufacturing defect makes the resulting injuries or fatalities all the more tragic. The more common seatbelt defects and seatbelt-related causes that have led or contributed to motor vehicle accident injuries and fatalities include:
* Faulty tension relieving device and excessive belt slack—seatbelt systems that include a device allowing for slack on the shoulder belt can sometimes fail to retract the belt after the occupant has moved forward, resulting in permanent slack. Many of these devices retract the belt after the occupant tugs on the belt after having moved forward. But an accident can take place while the belt is in the temporarily slacked state. The resulting slack, whether temporary or permanent, can result in head, facial or abdominal injuries and spine fractures during an accident.
* Shoulder belt spool out—a incident also known as “skip lock” occurs when a belt fails to lock or locks up late in the accident sequence. When seatbelt systems in which the seatbelt is designed to lock when the vehicle exceeds a specified level of deceleration experience skip lock, unnecessary head and spinal injuries may result.
* Defective buckle and inertial unlatching—many types of seat belt buckles can release during impact and open. The inertial force of the forward movement of the occupant is transferred to the spring of the buckle, which releases the tension on the latch plate. This can happen even during relatively weak impacts, and when the buckle releases, the occupant is subjected to the same dangers as he or she would of had the seatbelt not been worn at all.
* Defective buckle and unintentional or inadvertent unlatching—some seatbelt buckles have been shown to false latch, partially unlatch, inadvertently unlatch, fail under a load, become inoperative, or not latch at all. One example includes the GEN 3 buckles that are contained in 1993-2002 Chryslers. The release buttons are raised above the covers, subjecting them to accidental release during a collision. Another example is that of Takata buckles, which were used in nine million cars, trucks and SUVs of various makes between 1986 and 1991. The buckles' release buttons have been known to crack or break with the application of relatively weak impacts or forces.
* Lap belt only seatbelt—many rear seats, center seats and even front seats in older vehicles are equipped with lap-only seatbelts. By failing to restrain the upper torso such as with three-point diagonal shoulder belt system, lap-only seat belts can result in fatal internal injuries, facial fractures, spinal damage, brain damage and death when worn in an accident. The National Transportation Safety Board has concluded that lap-only belts can actually induce injury, ranging in severity from minor to deadly due to jack knifing. While the auto industry has been aware of this for decades, rear seat shoulder belts were not used until the late 1980s, so many vehicle still contain lap-only seatbelts in the rear and center seating positions.
* Improperly used passive restraint system—automatic belts were introduced in part as a less expensive way to counter proposed airbag requirements by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) in the late 1960s. The first automatic seatbelts had automatic shoulder belts, but no lap belts. In frontal collisions, occupants' torsos tended to slip under the belt while their heads and necks became caught by the belt, causing broken necks, spinal cord injuries and deaths. Manual lap belts was later included, but many occupants forgot to use them or were even aware they were there.
* Door mounted automatic belts with lap belts—some manufacturers introduced belt systems in which included lap belts. The systems were mounted to the structure of the door or door frame. But the system adversely limited the geometry of the design, and if the door opened during an accident, passengers were left unrestrained and often ejected from the vehicle.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Defective Fuel Systems Lawyers
While fires occur in about 0.1 percent of traffic accidents, they are the cause of fatalities in nearly three percent of accidents. Most fires in auto accidents begin when fuel from a vehicle contacts an ignition source. And one of the major causes of fuel leakage after a motor vehicle collision is a defective fuel system.
Fuel leakage that increases the risk of fire in auto accidents usually originates in ruptured fuel tanks and fuel lines. But there are many kinds of defects that can compromise the integrity of fuel systems, including:
* Poor placement of fuel tanks and fuel lines (especially tanks placed between an automobile's bumper and axel)
* Faulty and unprotected gas tank designs
* Defective or inadequate fuel line materials
* Defective welds
* Cruise control malfunctions
* Side-saddled tanks outside of the vehicle's, usually a truck's, frame
* Lack of, or poorly designed, emergency shut-off values
Fuel leakage that increases the risk of fire in auto accidents usually originates in ruptured fuel tanks and fuel lines. But there are many kinds of defects that can compromise the integrity of fuel systems, including:
* Poor placement of fuel tanks and fuel lines (especially tanks placed between an automobile's bumper and axel)
* Faulty and unprotected gas tank designs
* Defective or inadequate fuel line materials
* Defective welds
* Cruise control malfunctions
* Side-saddled tanks outside of the vehicle's, usually a truck's, frame
* Lack of, or poorly designed, emergency shut-off values
Defective Cruise Control Lawyer
A cruise control system is a modern convenience that automatically maintains the same speed of an automobile. In long drives through sparsely populated roads, using a cruise control system usually results in better fuel efficiency. It can also help some drivers who are prone to increase their speed over long stretches to avoid speeding tickets.
There are, however, some disadvantages to using cruise control. The vehicle may go over its cruise control setting, for instance, on a downhill steep enough to accelerate the vehicle despite an idling engine. A skillful driver may also be able to achieve even greater fuel efficiencies by taking the approaching terrain into account. Not having to maintain constant pedal pressure can contribute to inducing highway hypnosis. And stepping on the brake to disengage the cruise control on wet or ice-covered roads can cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle.
But when a cruise control system is defective, the potentially catastrophic, if not fatal consequences to the unsuspecting occupants of the vehicle are all the more tragic. Many cruise control accident investigations have led to a malfunction in the vehicle's computer as the cause. But while a few cases of sudden unintended acceleration have been blamed on driver error, the vast majority of cruise control accidents are now attributed to faulty workmanship and design by auto manufacturers.
A recent example of a cruise control failure that led to personal injury litigation involved the vehicle of a family on a road trip. With the cruise control engaged, the car began to accelerate on its own, quickly reaching 90 miles per hour before crashing and rolling over. The family was ejected from the vehicle and suffered a range of serious injuries from spinal fractures, paraplegia, quadriplegia, brain damage, and death. It was subsequently found that poorly designed speed control sensors and wiring had led to the vehicle's sudden acceleration.
The Ford Motor Company recently announced a recall of 3.6 million vehicles over reports that cruise control deactivation switches did not respond in some cases. The recall is to cover over a dozen models of passenger cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles built from 1992-2004. Previously, the automaker had recalled nearly six million vehicles over concerns of reports that the cruise control switch had caused fires.
Vehicles with design problems that have led to cruise control accidents and other problems include:
* 1992-1997 BMW
* Chevrolet Caprice and Chevrolet Van
* Ford (various models including Aero Star mini van, Crown Victoria, Explorer, F150 pickup and Taurus)
* Lincoln Town Car and Mark VII
* Mercedes Benz
* Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
* Toyota Corolla
* Yamaha Motorcycles
There are, however, some disadvantages to using cruise control. The vehicle may go over its cruise control setting, for instance, on a downhill steep enough to accelerate the vehicle despite an idling engine. A skillful driver may also be able to achieve even greater fuel efficiencies by taking the approaching terrain into account. Not having to maintain constant pedal pressure can contribute to inducing highway hypnosis. And stepping on the brake to disengage the cruise control on wet or ice-covered roads can cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle.
But when a cruise control system is defective, the potentially catastrophic, if not fatal consequences to the unsuspecting occupants of the vehicle are all the more tragic. Many cruise control accident investigations have led to a malfunction in the vehicle's computer as the cause. But while a few cases of sudden unintended acceleration have been blamed on driver error, the vast majority of cruise control accidents are now attributed to faulty workmanship and design by auto manufacturers.
A recent example of a cruise control failure that led to personal injury litigation involved the vehicle of a family on a road trip. With the cruise control engaged, the car began to accelerate on its own, quickly reaching 90 miles per hour before crashing and rolling over. The family was ejected from the vehicle and suffered a range of serious injuries from spinal fractures, paraplegia, quadriplegia, brain damage, and death. It was subsequently found that poorly designed speed control sensors and wiring had led to the vehicle's sudden acceleration.
The Ford Motor Company recently announced a recall of 3.6 million vehicles over reports that cruise control deactivation switches did not respond in some cases. The recall is to cover over a dozen models of passenger cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles built from 1992-2004. Previously, the automaker had recalled nearly six million vehicles over concerns of reports that the cruise control switch had caused fires.
Vehicles with design problems that have led to cruise control accidents and other problems include:
* 1992-1997 BMW
* Chevrolet Caprice and Chevrolet Van
* Ford (various models including Aero Star mini van, Crown Victoria, Explorer, F150 pickup and Taurus)
* Lincoln Town Car and Mark VII
* Mercedes Benz
* Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme
* Toyota Corolla
* Yamaha Motorcycles
Defective Car Seat Attorney
While there is a myriad of regulations addressing the safety of seatbelts and airbags, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not significantly updated seatback strength requirements since 1967. This belies the fact that seats and seatbacks are actually an integral part of a vehicle's safety system.
The auto industry has known for decades that even at speeds as slow as 25 miles per hour, seat and/or seatback failures have significantly contributed to serious injuries and fatalities in auto accidents, especially those involving rear-end collisions. Nearly every major auto manufacturer in the United States and abroad has been accused in a court of law of manufacturing unsafe seats and seatbacks.
Bucket seat seatbacks in certain car models have been particularly cited for bending or collapsing and causing injuries in rear-end collisions. The risk for injury is especially high for shorter adults or children who sit in the rear behind an occupied front bucket seat. Seat and seatback failures that have been known to have caused injuries and fatalities in auto accidents include:
* Defectively flimsy front seatback bends during impact, allowing the heads of the occupants in the front and back seat to collide with each other
* The mechanism holding up the back of a bucket seat breaks, causing the seat to collapse and the passenger to fall backwards violently
* Collapsing seatback results in passenger being thrown away from the safety of airbags and seatbelts
* Passenger is ejected from car or driver loses control
* Occupants are thrown around the car, making it difficult for them to get out of the car after an accident
* Seat ramp is improperly designed or does not slant upward, diminishing the chance that the passenger remains in his or her seat in the event of an accident
* Seat is torn from the car during impact because it was not attached according to government requirements
The auto industry has known for decades that even at speeds as slow as 25 miles per hour, seat and/or seatback failures have significantly contributed to serious injuries and fatalities in auto accidents, especially those involving rear-end collisions. Nearly every major auto manufacturer in the United States and abroad has been accused in a court of law of manufacturing unsafe seats and seatbacks.
Bucket seat seatbacks in certain car models have been particularly cited for bending or collapsing and causing injuries in rear-end collisions. The risk for injury is especially high for shorter adults or children who sit in the rear behind an occupied front bucket seat. Seat and seatback failures that have been known to have caused injuries and fatalities in auto accidents include:
* Defectively flimsy front seatback bends during impact, allowing the heads of the occupants in the front and back seat to collide with each other
* The mechanism holding up the back of a bucket seat breaks, causing the seat to collapse and the passenger to fall backwards violently
* Collapsing seatback results in passenger being thrown away from the safety of airbags and seatbelts
* Passenger is ejected from car or driver loses control
* Occupants are thrown around the car, making it difficult for them to get out of the car after an accident
* Seat ramp is improperly designed or does not slant upward, diminishing the chance that the passenger remains in his or her seat in the event of an accident
* Seat is torn from the car during impact because it was not attached according to government requirements
Defective Automobile Door Latch Lawyers
A door latch may seem to be a relatively unimportant auto part. In fact, it is an integral component of an automobile's safety systems. Not only can a door latch failure compromise the structural integrity of an automobile, it is the likeliest cause of occupant ejection during an accident. The likelihood of suffering a serious injury or death increases considerably when one is ejected from an automobile during an accident.
An automobile occupant who is ejected during a rollover accident, for instance, risks striking a tree or being crushed by his or her own vehicle, often resulting in broken bones, spinal, or head injuries. This type of eventuality could have been and can be prevented with properly functioning door locks and latches.
But for a victim of such an auto accident to prove that the automaker improperly manufactured or designed the car door or door latch is quite another matter. In order to receive compensation in a lawsuit, the following elements may need to be proven:
* The door latch failed during the accident
* The door latch failed to meet National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) crashworthiness standards
* The door failed as the result of a weak or malfunctioning door latch
* The door failure caused you or your loved one a serious or fatal injury
Several automakers are facing lawsuits for improperly designed or manufactured door latches responsible for causing serious injuries in auto accidents. About 100 people have been injured or killed after being ejected from GM vehicles whose "type III" door latches failed. Mitsubishi Motors has been found to have omitted evidence regarding door latch failures in its vehicles. Chrysler has settled cases involving defective door latches.
More notably, from 1997 to 2000, the Ford Motor Company equipped F-150 and F-150 trucks, Expeditions, and Lincoln Navigators with substandard door latches made by Donnelly Corp. A recall was scheduled for March, 2000 so that the torque of the latch springs could be increased. The recall was not only subsequently cancelled, owners of vehicles with the defective door latches were not notified of the potential hazard.
An automobile occupant who is ejected during a rollover accident, for instance, risks striking a tree or being crushed by his or her own vehicle, often resulting in broken bones, spinal, or head injuries. This type of eventuality could have been and can be prevented with properly functioning door locks and latches.
But for a victim of such an auto accident to prove that the automaker improperly manufactured or designed the car door or door latch is quite another matter. In order to receive compensation in a lawsuit, the following elements may need to be proven:
* The door latch failed during the accident
* The door latch failed to meet National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) crashworthiness standards
* The door failed as the result of a weak or malfunctioning door latch
* The door failure caused you or your loved one a serious or fatal injury
Several automakers are facing lawsuits for improperly designed or manufactured door latches responsible for causing serious injuries in auto accidents. About 100 people have been injured or killed after being ejected from GM vehicles whose "type III" door latches failed. Mitsubishi Motors has been found to have omitted evidence regarding door latch failures in its vehicles. Chrysler has settled cases involving defective door latches.
More notably, from 1997 to 2000, the Ford Motor Company equipped F-150 and F-150 trucks, Expeditions, and Lincoln Navigators with substandard door latches made by Donnelly Corp. A recall was scheduled for March, 2000 so that the torque of the latch springs could be increased. The recall was not only subsequently cancelled, owners of vehicles with the defective door latches were not notified of the potential hazard.
Defective Airbags Lawyers
Thanks to better airbag technology, increased use of seat belts, and more infant and children being placed in the back seat of automobiles, airbag-related injuries and deaths have continued to drop.
But while newer cars and trucks have the best airbag records, defective airbags have killed 264 people since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began keeping a record of airbag-related fatalities. And airbags continue to kill and injure people, even those in the newest automobile models.
In addition to frontal airbags, which inflate to prevent passengers from impacting the interior of the vehicle in a frontal crash, side-impact airbags have been introduced to help protect a passenger’s head and chest in a side-impact collision. Chest SABs are mounted in the door or in the side of the seat, and head SABs are typically mounted on the roof rail. SABs differ from frontal airbags in that in order to provide additional protection, they remain inflated for several seconds during the collision.
Most airbags deploy with varying strength depending on location and size of the occupants in the vehicle and whether they are wearing seat belts. Sensors that are built into passenger compartments determine the force of deployment. It is not uncommon, however, for airbags to detonate with over1200 pounds of force at speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour.
While this force often merely results in burns and bruises when an airbag deploys, it can also cause severe injuries such as blindness, or much too often in the case of children or small passengers, even death. Late airbag deployments also have the potential to cause serious injuries and fatalities. Late or unnecessary deployment by SABs with faulty designs can also cause serious injuries.
While the NHTSA estimates that airbags have saved nearly 20,000 lives, problems with airbags that continue to kill and injure people include:
* Untimely deployment – to work properly, an airbag must be fully inflated before making contact with the passenger. A faulty sensor or wiring system design can deploy an airbag at the wrong time
* Deployment in low-speed accidents – some older designs will deploy in a collision at seven to fifteen miles per hour, potentially causing injuries to an unsuspecting passenger. Most newer designs will deploy in collisions at fifteen to eighteen miles per hour
* Lack of tethers – these are straps sewn inside an airbag, which makes it inflate into a flatter pillow shape away from a passengers face. Older designs often lack these
* Horizontal inflation – some SABs inflate directly into the head of a child or shorter person rather than inflating vertically, which keeps the airbag clear of the passengers head
* Deployment with too much force
* Airbag inflates too slow
* Failure to deploy
But while newer cars and trucks have the best airbag records, defective airbags have killed 264 people since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) began keeping a record of airbag-related fatalities. And airbags continue to kill and injure people, even those in the newest automobile models.
In addition to frontal airbags, which inflate to prevent passengers from impacting the interior of the vehicle in a frontal crash, side-impact airbags have been introduced to help protect a passenger’s head and chest in a side-impact collision. Chest SABs are mounted in the door or in the side of the seat, and head SABs are typically mounted on the roof rail. SABs differ from frontal airbags in that in order to provide additional protection, they remain inflated for several seconds during the collision.
Most airbags deploy with varying strength depending on location and size of the occupants in the vehicle and whether they are wearing seat belts. Sensors that are built into passenger compartments determine the force of deployment. It is not uncommon, however, for airbags to detonate with over1200 pounds of force at speeds exceeding 230 miles per hour.
While this force often merely results in burns and bruises when an airbag deploys, it can also cause severe injuries such as blindness, or much too often in the case of children or small passengers, even death. Late airbag deployments also have the potential to cause serious injuries and fatalities. Late or unnecessary deployment by SABs with faulty designs can also cause serious injuries.
While the NHTSA estimates that airbags have saved nearly 20,000 lives, problems with airbags that continue to kill and injure people include:
* Untimely deployment – to work properly, an airbag must be fully inflated before making contact with the passenger. A faulty sensor or wiring system design can deploy an airbag at the wrong time
* Deployment in low-speed accidents – some older designs will deploy in a collision at seven to fifteen miles per hour, potentially causing injuries to an unsuspecting passenger. Most newer designs will deploy in collisions at fifteen to eighteen miles per hour
* Lack of tethers – these are straps sewn inside an airbag, which makes it inflate into a flatter pillow shape away from a passengers face. Older designs often lack these
* Horizontal inflation – some SABs inflate directly into the head of a child or shorter person rather than inflating vertically, which keeps the airbag clear of the passengers head
* Deployment with too much force
* Airbag inflates too slow
* Failure to deploy
Defective Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) Lawyers
The anti-lock braking system (ABS) is one of several computer assisted braking systems that have come into widespread use in production automobiles since its adoption in the 1970s. Computer assisted breaking systems have evolved to include not only the ABS function (which prevents the brakes from locking), but also electronic control of the front-to-rear bias (EBD), traction control (TCS or ASR), electronic stability control (ESC, ESP or DSC), and emergency brake assist (EBA, BA or HBA), amongst others.
Electronic Stability Control systems (ESP or ESC) are an evolution of ABS systems. Additional sensors allow the ESP to detect whether the direction the car takes coincides with that intended by the steering wheel. If not, the ESP brakes the necessary individual wheel or wheels so that the vehicle goes in the intended direction.
The continuing advances in brake technologies have dramatically improved braking performance and safety. But if the brakes have design or manufacturing flaws, even the most advanced technologies will not prevent a potentially dangerous situation. And as the complexity of braking systems increases, so does the number of ways they can fail. If the computer malfunctions due to substandard workmanship, for instance, the brakes may engage when they shouldn't. Conversely, the computer may prevent the brakes from functioning at all.
Electronic Stability Control systems (ESP or ESC) are an evolution of ABS systems. Additional sensors allow the ESP to detect whether the direction the car takes coincides with that intended by the steering wheel. If not, the ESP brakes the necessary individual wheel or wheels so that the vehicle goes in the intended direction.
The continuing advances in brake technologies have dramatically improved braking performance and safety. But if the brakes have design or manufacturing flaws, even the most advanced technologies will not prevent a potentially dangerous situation. And as the complexity of braking systems increases, so does the number of ways they can fail. If the computer malfunctions due to substandard workmanship, for instance, the brakes may engage when they shouldn't. Conversely, the computer may prevent the brakes from functioning at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)