Yourlawyer.com (SUV Rollovers News) http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/suv_rollovers Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:42:25 -0800 pixel-app en Toyota Rollover Lawsuits Could be Reopened Due to Cover-up Allegations http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/16945 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/16945 rollover accidents that resulted in deaths and injuries.  According to a report in the Los Angeles Times, the accusations could ultimately result in hundreds of rollover accident lawsuits against Toyota being reopened.

According to the Times, the stunning allegations were made in a federal lawsuit filed by Dimitrios P. Biller,  a former  managing counsel for Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc.   His job involved defending the company in lawsuits filed by victims of  injured in rollover accidents involving Toyota sport utility vehicles and trucks. Biller claims the automaker forced him to resign in 2007.  The company gave him a $3.2 million severance payment, the Times said.

Biller's lawsuits claims Toyota illegally withheld e-mails and other computer-stored information from victims' attorneys, the Times said. It also alleges that the automaker destroyed data in over 300 accidents that Biller claims proves vehicle roofs were substandard.  According to the Times, lawsuits filed by the victims of these accidents blamed poor roof design for injuries and deaths.

In addition, Biller's lawsuit claims the company hid information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration regarding its compliance with roof safety regulations.

According to a CBS News report, Biller's lawsuit asserts that he repeatedly complained to  about these practices.  The stress caused him to suffer a mental breakdown, resulting in his forced resignation in 2007, the lawsuit claims.  

According to a USA Today report, some consumer groups are predicting serious consequences for Toyota if Biller's claims are proven.  "If the allegations are correct that Toyota destroyed or withheld (electronic) data, it has the potential to reopen hundreds of Toyota rollover cases," Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety, told USA Today.

Victims' lawyers are already gearing up for that fight.  “The petition alleges conduct by Toyota that would cause every case ever resolved by Toyota in the past 10 years to be re-opened,” one Texas attorney who represented plaintiffs in Toyota rollover lawsuits, told Bloomberg.com. “We intend to ask the courts to re-open these lawsuits.”

]]> Staten Island SUV Rollover Lawsuit Results in $8.6 Million Judgment Against Ford http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15066 Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/15066 Two victims of an SUV rollover accident have been awarded $8.6 million for the psychological damage they suffered as a result of the tragedy, which also killed two of their relatives. The decision by a Staten Island, New York judge reverses the decision made by a  jury  five months ago, which had found that Ford Motor Credit Company and Ford Motor Company were not liable for the death of Gary Motelson's older son or the injuries Motelson and his younger son suffered.  Ford Motor Credit was the owner and lessor of the SUV, while Ford Motor manufactured the vehicle.

The accident in question occurred in July of 2001, while Motelson and his sons were among four passengers in a 1998 Explorer driven by Gary's father, Steven Motelson.  They were returning from a Boy Scout camping trip when the vehicle overturned on Route 17 in upstate New York.  Steven Motelson was killed, as was Gary's 9-year-son.  Another 21-year-old passenger, Gary Motelson and his 5-year-old boy survived. 

In their lawsuit, the Motelson's claimed that the SUV suddenly accelerated and lost its brakes as Steven Motelson struggled to regain control. Ford blamed the crash on the driver, claiming that the elder Motelson allowed the vehicle to drift off the road.  The company said the SUV went careening when he overcompensated on the steering wheel.

In March, a jury found that a defectively designed roof-support system on the SUV caused Steven Motelson's death, and awarded $6.5 million to his widow and estate.  But the jury said that the Ford SUV was not to blame for injuries sustained by Gary Motelson and his son, or for the death of his oldest son.

In the case of the boys - as well as the other passenger - the jury found that none were wearing their seatbelts when they were ejected from the SUV.  Gary Motelson was sitting in the passenger-front seat, where the roof did not fail, according to the jury.

But  Justice Joseph J. Maltese said jurors in March had failed to consider the "extreme emotional distress" that the plaintiffs suffered as a result  of witnessing their loved ones' deaths, while they were also  exposed to the same dangerous conditions in the Ford vehicle.

Maltese awarded Gary Motelson $3.2 million and his younger son $5.4 million for medical and psychiatric care, as well as for past and future pain and suffering.  The Judge wrote that while jurors had found Ford not responsible for the younger boy's physical injuries, the panel "failed to discern the difference" between those injuries and the psychological trauma he endured in witnessing the death of his older brother and grandfather. The boy was in the so-called "zone of danger," which legally means, he, too, was threatened with bodily harm created by the defendant's negligence and entitled to compensation, the judge said.

"As to the extreme emotional distress suffered by [the boy], it is irrelevant whether he was wearing a seat belt," Maltese wrote in his 19-page decision.

The judge said Gary Motelson, likewise, was entitled to recover damages. He also awarded $150,000 to Gary Motelson's wife for loss of consortium.

Maltese also reduced the award the jury granted to the widow and estate of Steven Motelson.  He cut the award to the estate by $173,000, to $1.3 million, ruling that the jury had overestimated the victim's potential future earnings. He also reduced. Motelson's widow's award from $5 million to $3.7 million, saying part of it duplicated the estate award.  

In total Ford has been ordered to pay $13.8 million to the various plaintiffs, but that amount could grow.  That's because Ford must also pay statutory interest of 9 percent going back to the date of incident and the filing of the lawsuit in 2001.  If the award is upheld on appeal - and Ford says it does plan to appeal the verdict - it would be largest judgment ever issues by a Staten Island Court in a single incident.

]]> Ford settles many rollover cases http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11121 Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11121
Hey, maybe there is something special about the holiday spirit after all.

A Texas lawyer and Ford Motor Company, whose ferocious legal wrangling in South Texas drew national attention in recent months, spent December sorting things out.

"There has been settlement of nine cases, and I know Ford and lawyer are going to be sitting down and talking about some other cases," said Ford lawyer David Prichard.

Prichard, who several months ago accused Watts of pursuing a "jihad" against the auto maker, struggled to explain the sudden - and perhaps only temporary cessation of hostilities.

"I don't think it represents a dramatic change at Ford, which has always been willing to talk about reasonably resolving cases," Prichard said.

Until recently, Ford and the lawyer tended to duke out every case in court.

Among the cases recently settled were three that had resulted in jury verdicts totaling $100 million against Ford.

One of them, a case in Crystal City that resulted in a $31 million verdict against Ford, was also an embarrassment to Watts because of irregularities with the jury and with legal representation of Ford's co-defendant. Ford had appealed that case, claiming the verdict was tainted.

The texas, who has created a profitable cottage industry suing Ford for rollover accidents involving its SUVs, had about 40 cases pending against the auto company, with a dozen or more set to go to trial this year.

He said Ford's policy of refusing to settle resulted in many cases going to trial. But, that changed, he said, when the auto company sent out feelers late this year.

"They called one of my lawyers in Houston and said they wanted to have a meeting. They wanted to talk about every case we had," he said.

"It started off with a good bit of confrontation and mistrust, but both sides committed to work through that," he said. "The hope was that we could do a business deal, and hopefully we got that."

Because the settlements were confidential, neither side would discuss how many millions of dollars changed hands.

"We have a large number of cases against Ford on file, and about 10 of them are set for trial between now and June," he said. "If Ford wants to resolve them on terms that are acceptable to our clients, we're certainly ready."
]]> Explorer Roof Called Too Weak http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10951 Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10951
Safety Analysis and Forensic Engineering, which performs research for plaintiffs suing automakers, says internal Ford documents show that a substantial number of 1999 to 2001 Explorers likely do not comply with the federal vehicle roof strength standard.

The firm is asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate. NHTSA has placed the petition and Ford documents collected by SAFE Research in its public docket and plans to respond within 120 days.

"This situation exposes owners of these vehicles to increased risk of serious injury in rollovers," said Stephen Forrest, senior engineer and principal with SAFE Research.

Ford disputes the claims. It said all of its vehicles meet or exceed federal safety standards and SAFE Research misinterpreted company documents and drew conclusions about tests run on an experimental vehicle that was substantially different from the SUVs on the road.

"Members of SAFE primarily earn their living by working for plaintiff attorneys, and much of their data is derived from our own testing of a prototype vehicle that was never sold to the public," said Ford spokesman Dan Jarvis.

The dispute provides a window into the often murky world of big-time auto litigation, where internal documents unearthed during the course of trials are examined and interpreted by both sides.

The latest assertions may only intensify the growing debate over vehicle roof strength. Ford faces hundreds of lawsuits stemming from Explorer rollovers. And the company already has been hit with several multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in cases in which plaintiffs alleged the Explorer's roof is too weak.

The documents cited by SAFE Research were introduced as evidence in a trial in Texas in October stemming from an Explorer rollover accident that killed two teenagers. Forrest testified about the documents filed with NHTSA for the plaintiffs. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said it was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount after Forrest testified.

SAFE Research contends Ford made design changes over the years that weakened the roof of the Explorer. Ford made an exception to an internal company standard to build roofs 25 percent stronger than the federal roof strength minimum, the firm said.

In 1999, years after Ford had certified that its third-generation Explorer met federal safety standards, engineers discovered the roof was weaker than previously thought either below the federal standard or so close to it that some Explorers likely were manufactured below the minimum because of normal variation, according to SAFE Research.

Ford completely redesigned the Explorer for the 2002 model year and beyond.

SAFE Research specializes in roof strength issues, and its engineers have testified on behalf of plaintiffs in numerous rollover trials, many of which have involved Ford. Forrest trained at the General Motors Technical Institute in Flint.

NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson said the agency usually responds to petitions within 120 days and would offer no comment on the merits of the charges by SAFE Research. "Our compliance people have received it," Tyson said. "We are evaluating it."

If NHTSA finds a vehicle in noncompliance with federal law, the manufacturer is subject to fines and mandatory recalls.

The Ford Explorer has withstood challenges to its safety. The automaker endured years of public relations battering over the Explorer's safety record during the Firestone tire recall.

Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. and numerous safety groups charged the SUV rolled over too easily, adding to the number of crashes, deaths and injuries. NHTSA later found no evidence that the vehicle rolled over more frequently than other comparable SUVs.

In its petition to NHTSA, SAFE Research's charge does not pertain to the Explorer's stability. Rather, the firm contends the 1999 to 2001 Explorer likely does not meet federal safety standard 216, which stipulates that vehicle roofs must withstand a force equal to at least 1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight.

Safety advocates have long complained that safety standard 216 is a toothless law that hasn't been updated since 1971. NHTSA has proposed upgrading the 216 test to require a 2.5 strength-to-weight minimum.

A trail of documents

Ford company documents attached to SAFE Research's petition show the automaker relied on the roof-strength tests of an earlier-generation Explorer to certify the 1999 model year. A series of five tests were conducted between Jan. 14, 1993, and March 22, 1995. The Explorer appeared to pass the roof-strength requirement in those tests, averaging a 1.69 strength-to-weight ratio. Ford had an internal roof-strength standard of 1.875, or 25 percent stronger than the federal minimum.

Ford made an exception for the Explorer, as a memo dated March 1992 explains. The memo was called a "Regulatory Engineering Design Standard Deviation." The document outlines that a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.63 would be sufficient for the Explorer, since enough roof-crush tests had been conducted to ensure, within the expected 9 percent testing variation, the SUVs would still exceed the federal minimum of 1.5.In May 1999, while studying whether to change the way the windshield adheres to the body frame, Ford engineer R.G. Roose produced a report titled "1999 Explorer Roof Crush Certification (FMVSS 216)." The test yielded a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.48 with a maximum unloaded-vehicle weight of 4,700 pounds, the same weight used in the 1993 and 1995 certification tests.

But the 4,700-pound weight is crossed out and a weight of 4,600 pounds is used instead, yielding a ratio of 1.52 barely over the federal minimum.

"After the test, the requestor indicated the wrong maximum weight was used," the test report notes.

A second roof-crush test, conducted on Oct. 22, 1999, yielded similar results.

Forrest argued that whether the 4,600-pound or 4,700-pound vehicle weight is used, many Explorers wouldn't meet the standards. That's because normal variation from vehicle to vehicle means a portion of the SUVs sold during that time period would fall below that standard.

The debate ultimately comes down to this: Ford says the roof tests were done on an experimental vehicle that never hit the road; SAFE Research says the documents show that Ford's engineers looked at the issue of whether the modified windshield explained the drop in roof strength and concluded it didn't.

Forrest said the two 1999 tests are the only known instances where Ford conducted a roof-crush test on that version of the Explorer.

"SAFE has analyzed sufficient evidence to suggest that Ford has produced Explorer vehicles to the public that do not pass [safety standard] 216, thus violating federal law," the petition reads.

Ford officials said all of its compliance tests have demonstrated that the 1999 to 2001 Explorer met safety standard 216. The company declined to provide The Detroit News with test reports to support the contention.

Furthermore, Ford said an independent test firm conducted three tests on Explorers and showed that the SUV met standard 216. Forrest said those tests were done specifically for litigation and do not hold as much weight as tests run by Ford engineers. Ford said NHTSA has conducted roof strength compliance tests on two different generations of the Explorer model years 1996 and 2002 and found them to be in compliance.

“Ford Motor Co. is confident that if NHTSA tested the 1999 through 2001 Explorers, it would reach the same conclusion,” Ford spokesman Jarvis said.

Under federal law, manufacturers must certify that their vehicles meet minimum federal safety standards before they can be sold in the United States. Automakers test the vehicles themselves to ensure they comply with the dozens of regulatory requirements. The companies certify their vehicles meet federal standards by placing a label inside the door jamb.

For vehicles that were manufactured before Nov. 1, 2000, the penalty for noncompliance was $1,100 per violation, up to a maximum of $925,000. After the Tread Act was signed into law on that date, the penalties increased to $5,000 per vehicle, up to a maximum of $15 million.

Under the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act, automakers can be required to recall, replace or buy back any vehicles that are not in compliance.

Other safety experts who have reviewed SAFE Research's filing also are raising questions.

"There's ample evidence to question whether Ford legitimately certified these vehicles," said Carl Nash, a former NHTSA official who now works for XPrts LLC, a research firm in Santa Barbara, Calif., that frequently testifies against automakers in roof-crush cases.

Experts weigh in

Ben Parr, a retired director of automotive research for State Farm Insurance Co. who has been studying the roof strength issue for the last year, reviewed the SAFE Research petition. Parr also has testified against automakers in roof-crush cases.

Before his career at State Farm, Parr was an engineering manager at GM. Parr said when he worked with sheet metal, the rule of thumb was a 15 percent margin of error to provide for adequate safety.

"If you are down to 3 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent, you don't have enough," Parr said. "There goes your cushion."

Campbell Laird, a professor of materials science engineering at the University of Pennsylvania with 45 years of professional experience, reviewed the SAFE Research petition at the request of The Detroit News. Laird has been an observer of the federal work on roof-strength regulations and weighed in with formal comments as NHTSA was preparing to revise safety standard 216.

Laird said SAFE had presented enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

"I find it very plausible," Laird said. "Ford did not meet its own internal standards."

Ford wages legal battle

The charges from SAFE Research are the latest in a series of revelations that have emerged from Ford documents used as evidence in lawsuits. In March, a Jacksonville, Fla., trial involving a 2000 Ford Explorer that rolled over resulted in a $10.2 million verdict for the family of Claire Duncan, a 26-year-old engineer who died from a skull fracture.

Documents introduced in that trial showed that Ford has twice reduced the roof strength of the Explorer as it has redesigned the vehicle. In addition, documents and videos of tests conducted by Ford's Volvo subsidiary called into question Ford's contention that stronger roofs do not provide any meaningful protection against injury.

The Volvo documents showed that the Swedish carmaker, which is considered the industry leader in safety technology, made strenuous efforts to strengthen the roof of its XC-90 SUV to reduce the likelihood of injury in rollover crashes.

Ford has been waging a legal battle to keep its documents out of the public realm.

Normally, documents used as evidence in a jury trial become part of public record. But Ford is arguing in courts in Jacksonville, Fla., and Corpus Christi and Brownsville, Texas, to seal evidence on the grounds it would reveal trade secrets.

Some documents, including Volvo test reports and videos, were placed in NHTSA's public docket earlier this year. NHTSA removed them after Ford objected.
]]> NHTSA Releases New Proposed Auto Roof Strength Standards http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10562 Sun, 21 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10562
Those proposed new requirements have now been released.

If instituted, the new requirements would affect all vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds, overriding the current cut off at 6,000 pounds.

These new regulations regarding vehicle roof strength are only one measure of  NHTSA’s plan to reduce the nearly 10,000 deaths and hundreds of injuries that occur in rollover crashes.
Specifically, the agency aims to reduce the deaths and injuries of passengers wearing seat belts. Currently about 807 serious injuries and 596 fatalities occur annually to these riders from roof collapse.

To improve safety during rollovers the NHTSA is also considering the development of more advanced safety belt technology to keep passengers in their seats during a rollover crash.

However, the NHTSA estimates the new roof crush standard alone will substantially reduce fatalities. It could prevent between 13 and 44 deaths and 500-800 injuries annually once it is in full effect.

Under the new standards a roof would be required to withstand applied forces equal to 2.5 times the vehicle weight without encroaching on the headroom for an average sized adult male. The current requirement is that the roof be able to withstand an applied force equal to 1.5 times the vehicle weight, with a limit of 5,000 pounds for cars.

According to NHTSA, the new roof standards are estimated to cost only $11.81 per vehicle to implement for a total average yearly cost of $88-$95 million.

As expected, the auto industry has taken the position that the new requirements will increase cost without increasing safety while consumer advocates claim the new regulations do not go far enough.

NHTSA will receive comments on the proposal for 90 days. To voice an opinion or see the full proposal visit the government website at: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/rulings/RoofCrushNotice/216NPRM-to-FR.html]]> National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) To Toughen Rules for Auto Roofs http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10539 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10539
The need for such changes has been a matter of disagreement between the auto industry and safety groups. Automakers have argued that strengthening roofs does not improve safety on the top-heavy SUVs that tend to rollover more frequently, but whose luxury price tags translate into big profits.

Safety advocates have taken the position that roof strength standards must be more demanding and they will push for tougher regulations and more effective tests that simulate an actual rollover. They contend that the current standard has resulted in weak roofs that are directly responsible for thousands of rollover deaths, particularly in SUVs.

Deaths in rollover crashes, which account for more than one-third of automobile accident fatalities, have increased in 2004 to10,553 from 10,442 in 2003.

Addressing these concerns, the federal rules will apply to large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks like the Chevrolet Suburban, the Dodge Ram and the Ford Expedition. Currently, the law exempts any vehicle over 6,000 pounds.

Although the new rules will affect future automobile models, they will not serve to end numerous clams automakers already face over the issue of roof strength in the context of ongoing personal injury and wrongful death cases around the country. Juries in Texas, California, and Nebraska have already awarded millions of dollars in damages to rollover crash victims or their survivors.

In a recent Florida trial concerning the rollover of a Ford Explorer, evidence showed that Volvo had made strengthening the roof of its SUV, the XC-90, a priority during the design process. The Volvo documents directly contradicted Ford's longstanding claim that roof strength was unrelated to injury in a rollover crash.
 ]]> Stronger Car Roofs Could Save Lives In Rollovers, Safety Group Says http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9528 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9528
Ford said it had not read the study by a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, but said strengthening roofs would not further protect people.

The report by Martha Bidez examined tests conducted by Ford that were released as part of a Florida lawsuit involving a 26-year-old woman killed in a rollover accident while driving a Ford Explorer.

Bidez said catastrophic injuries to the head and spinal cord and death result when a roof is crushed in a rollover. Stronger roofs would have better resist being crushed, thus saving lives, she said.

"Strengthening roofs and installing other basic safety devices, such as side head air bags, safety glass and pre-tensioned belts, is the only way to save lives in rollover crashes," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, the group that announced the study's findings.

"If the roofs didn't collapse in a rollover crash, the people in the vehicle have a far better chance of surviving," she said.

The government's auto safety agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is expected to issue new requirements this year about roof strength.

Ford took issue with Bidez's work. "It appears to be based on previous material prepared by Martha Bidez, which is seriously flawed, unscientific, and it misinterprets the data she is relying on," the company said in a statement.

"Simply strengthening the roof won't improve the safety of SUVs and other passenger vehicles in rollovers," the company said. "Years of testing show strengthening the roof will not affect the outcome of the crash for the simple reason that the injury mechanics are not related to how much the roof is deformed in a rollover crash."

Safety groups say that when a roof is crushed, it makes safety belts less likely to work and the occupant is more likely to be ejected from the vehicle.

The study was based on tests released in a Jacksonville, Fla., lawsuit in which Claire Duncan died in a May 2001 rollover crash along Interstate 95 in Virginia.

The Florida jury ruled on March 18 that the Explorer's roof was defective. Ford was ordered to pay Duncan's husband $10.2 million for economic damages, pain and suffering. Ford has said it plans to appeal the verdict.]]> Study Ties Deaths To Crushed Auto Roofs http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9535 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9535
The report, authored by an engineering professor at the University of Alabama and paid for by $200,000 from Tab Turner, contradicts federal testimony by Ford and other automakers that no correlation exists between deformed vehicle roofs and head and neck injuries sustained in rollovers.

The report comes as federal regulators are in the final stages of proposing the first significant upgrades in roof-strength standards in more than 30 years.

The Detroit News reported last year that an estimated 7,000 people are killed or injured annually in rollover accidents in which the roof was deformed, according to federal statistics.

The study of four rollover tests of Ford Explorers conducted in 1998 and 1999 found that the roofs collapsed before injuries occurred to crash-test dummies, according to University of Alabama-Birmingham professor Martha Bidez.

The findings dispute the assertions by automakers that vehicle occupants are injured when they "dive" into the roof during a rollover accident.

In her report, Bidez said that "significant deformation occurred prior to peak injury." The data, she said, establish "a clear causal relationship" between head and neck injuries and crushed roofs.

Ford said in a statement that it had not yet analyzed the study but criticized previous work done by Bidez. "It appears to be based on previous material prepared by Martha Bidez, which is seriously flawed, unscientific and it misinterprets the data she is relying on," Ford said.

The automaker repeated its previous position that roof strength is not a key factor in preventing rollover injuries and fatalities.

"Simply strengthening the roof won't improve the safety of SUVs and passenger vehicles in rollovers," Ford said.

Ford and other automakers face dozens of pending lawsuits related to roof strength in rollover accidents.

On March 18, a Jacksonville, Fla., jury ordered Ford to pay $10.2 million to the family of a woman killed in an Explorer rollover crash where the roof collapsed. Ford has said it plans to appeal the verdict.

A NHTSA spokesman said Wednesday that proposed changes to roof-strength rules first enacted in 1971 will likely be made public this summer.

"We have completed our work on a proposed new standard," said Rae Tyson of NHTSA. "It is undergoing final department review and we should have something out in June or July."

Tyson said the agency had not yet seen the study presented Wednesday.

In the report, Bidez and two associates analyzed data from sensors and video cameras used to document four separate rollover crash tests conducted for Ford by an outside supplier in 1998 and 1999.

In the tests, the Explorers were placed on an angle on a moving dolly that accelerated to 30 miles an hour and then stopped, forcing a rollover.

Data from the tests first surfaced in litigation against Ford, and was referenced last year by Ford in testimony to NHTSA.

According to Bidez, the data show that the Explorer roofs collapsed before injuries were recorded by crash-test dummies. "One-hundred percent of the time, roof-crush preceded the catastrophic injuries measured," Bidez said Wednesday. "Not only was there a relationship established, it was 100% of the time."

One prominent auto-safety advocate said the report underscores the need for tougher federal standards. "Roof strength is absolutely critical to saving lives and preventing injuries in rollovers," said Joan Claybrook, president of Washington-based Public Citizen and former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Claybrook said Ford and other automakers have "misled" NHTSA by denying any link between roof strength and injuries.

She further criticized the 34-year-old NHTSA roof-strength standard, in which static pressure is applied to one of the A-pillars framing a vehicle's windshield.

Claybrook advocated so-called "dynamic" tests like those Ford performed internally in 1998 and 1999, in which a vehicle is actually rolled over under controlled conditions.

Tyson declined to say what type of test NHTSA will recommend in its proposed revisions to the roof-strength standard.

However, he said regulators "have a lot of problems" with dynamic tests because they are difficult to repeat precisely.]]> Ford, Safety Advocates Debate Rollover Crashes http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9523 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9523
"The seat belt did not hold her because the roof had collapsed and there was nothing holding the seat belts," says her mother, Yvonne Morris.

Two weeks into their wrongful death suit against Ford, the company settled.

Wednesday, the advocacy group Public Citizen released a new study on "roof crush" accidents. The conclusion: "Roof crush can and does cause catastrophic injury and death. The science is irrefutable."

"This is a vehicle they know is prone to rollover and yet they took the strength out of the roof in the mid-90s," says Public Citizen president Joan Claybrook.

In Virginia, Claire Duncan died of a fractured skull after her Ford Explorer rolled over. Ford claimed she was run off the road an no onecould have survived the crash that roof strength was not a factor.

But the jury ordered Ford to pay $10 million, after finding that Ford was liable. The plaintiffs introdcued evidence that during the mid-1990s, Ford had weakened its roofs during redesigns, while maintaining the minimum government standard. And in 1999, after Ford bought Volvo, Volvo was sill working to strenthen its roofs.

"I believe that the auto industry has known for years that stronger roofs will save lives," says Claybrook.

For its part, Ford tells NBC News: "Simply strengthening the roof will not affect the outcome of the crash for the simple reason that the injury mechanics (how victims are injured) are not related to how much the roof is deformed in a rollover crash."

But some crash experts disagree.

"There's no question that the strength of a roof has something to do with the ability of occupants to survive a rollover without serious injuries," says Brian O'Neill of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which conducts crash tests on all model vehicles.

Ford and other experts say seat belts and airbags are also crucial to surviving a crash. Public Citizen says the auto industry has long opposed strengthening minimum roof requirements, but this summer, the government is expected to announce a new standard.]]> Automakers Misled Government About Roof Strength, Report Charges http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9529 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9529
The report, written by a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, debunks what some auto manufacturers have said for years: that in rollover crashes, people sustain head and neck injuries when they dive into the roofs of their vehicles, not when the roofs crush into the peoples heads.

Automakers have made this claim to argue against government requirements for stronger roofs on vehicles and to shield themselves from liability in lawsuits brought by families of rollover crash victims.

But the report written by Martha Bidez, Ph.D., analyzes Fords own tests to show that roof crush does, in fact, occur prior to injurious neck loads during rollovers. Thus, improving a vehicles resistance to roof crush would prevent catastrophic head and spinal cord injuries and deaths.

The report is particularly important because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is on the verge of proposing a new roof strength standard, although many auto safety experts do not expect it to improve safety in a meaningful way.

The current standard dates from 1971 and has not been updated despite repeated promises by agency officials to do so.

In addition, new industry documents made public only recently show that while Ford has denied a link between roof strength and rollover crash injuries, its subsidiary, Volvo, has recognized that strengthening roofs and installing side head air bags and pre-tensioned belts in rollover crashes will save lives. Volvo produces the XC-90, a vehicle with a roof that does not crush in during rollover tests.

Every year, almost 10,000 people are killed in rollover crashes, and 6,000 to 7,000 deaths a year are related to roof collapse and roof crush.

"Strengthening roofs and installing other basic safety devices, such as side head air bags, safety glass and pre-tensioned belts, is the only way to save lives in rollover crashes," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook.

"For automakers to claim that head injuries are the fault of people diving into the roofs of their cars is ludicrous. If the roofs dont collapse in a rollover crash, the people in the vehicle have a far better chance of surviving. The industry should strengthen roofs."

Added Bidez, "This report presents the results of some of the industrys own rollover test data as unequivocal evidence that roof crush can and does cause catastrophic injury and death. It underscores the urgent need for a significantly upgraded dynamic roof strength standard to protect belted occupants in rollovers."

The report also shows that:

Ford misrepresented the meaning of its data in presentations to NHTSA;

The dynamic tests done by Ford demonstrated consistent results that could be repeated with dynamic tests when viewed in the framework of occupant injury and correlated with real-world data on rollovers;

Neck position is a crucial component of how severely injured someone is in a rollover crash, yet Ford arranged the neck position of its dummies in some of its published studies, which produced misleading results on the impact on the spinal cord of roof crush; and

Any investigation of roof strength and rollover crashes should analyze total harm to occupants, not just deaths.

The current roof crush standard was enacted in 1971 and took effect in 1973. The one-sided static test requires one section of a vehicles roof to withstand 1.5 times the vehicles weight. The test assumes the windshield remains intact throughout the crash, despite the fact that in rollover crashes, the windshield is usually gone by the first quarter turn.

Once the windshield is gone, the roof loses a third of its strength, making it far more likely that the roof will crush in and making it easier for people to be ejected.

Over the years, NTHSA officials have promised many times to upgrade the standard and require automakers to make stronger roofs. But the agency has dragged its feet and has not issued a rule. The agency is expected to propose a minor upgrade a placebo to respond to demands for stronger vehicle roofs, Public Citizen said.

It is not known whether the agency will address pre-tensioning of belts in rollovers. Currently, there is no federal test for belt performance in rollovers. Side head air bags are the subject of a separate rulemaking, but it does not address inflation in rollovers.

One of the basic tenets of auto safety is that to prevent injuries, there can be little or no intrusion. It is essential to prevent parts of the vehicle from closing in and coming into contact with occupants in the vehicle, Claybrook said. Other key injury prevention techniques involve padding and adequate restraint systems.

So by strengthening roofs and ensuring that they stay intact during rollover crashes and installing side head air bags, safety glass in side windows and pre-tensioned belts, which keep occupants in their seats many of the deaths and injuries that occur in rollover crashes can be prevented, she said.

"The auto industry has misled NHTSA and the public solely to protect its bottom line. But in doing so, it has jeopardized the lives of thousands of motorists every year," Claybrook said.

"NHTSA should not allow itself to be hoodwinked any longer. Automakers know how to increase survivability in rollover crashes, as the documents show. NHTSA needs to require all manufacturers to follow suit."]]> Is Your Teen Safe Behind The Wheel? http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9538 Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9538
With the exception of the Lincoln LS that the 17-year-old Long Island, N.Y., resident drove when she first began learning, her family had always owned SUVs. They spent each Saturday afternoon over two months at various dealerships before Jessica decided on a 2-year-old white Jeep Liberty last May.

"They didn't want me in a car," says Jessica, a senior at St. John the Baptist Diocesan High School in West Islip. "They thought a Jeep was safer."

Jessica's father, Bob Wolfert, 50, says he felt more comfortable with his daughter in an SUV, especially for the 30-minute drive she has to school each morning and in bad weather.

With their size, indestructible look and four-wheel drive systems, SUVs seem to be a good first-car choice for parents concerned with safety. Teens are attracted to the rugged appearance of some models or feel comfortable sitting higher up while driving on the highway.

But evidence has been mounting that SUVs, while seemingly ubiquitous on the roads, may not be as safe as people once thought. With its high center of gravity, an SUV is three times as likely to roll over in an accident than a regular car, and its size makes split-second maneuvers much more difficult.

The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute recently studied single-vehicle crashes involving SUVs. The results indicated that when the SUV drivers were younger than 25, the vehicles rolled over 37 percent of the time.

Government officials are starting to take notice. A $27-million ad campaign recently launched in all 50 states alerts drivers, specifically men ages 18 to 34, to the risk of rollovers in SUVs that come with speeding, swerving and abrupt maneuvers. The campaign is being funded by a 2002 settlement with the Ford Motor Co., after lawsuits alleged it had misled consumers on how to drive, load and maintain Ford Explorers.

SUVs might not even be the most desirable set of wheels for some teens. According to a November survey by TNS Automotive, a Greenwich, Conn.-based market research firm, only 8 percent of those between 16 and 19 favor SUVs, while 37 percent like sedans, such as the BMW 3-series, and 33 percent like coupes, such as the Honda Civic.

So how should a parent navigate the tricky experience of buying a car they can feel confident in?

If safety is a primary concern, it's best to review government crash records and go from there, says Mike Hudson, a consumer advice editor for Edmunds.com, a Santa Monica, Calif.-based Web site with information for car buyers. If a parent is set on an SUV, some of the newer models are designed more like regular cars, Hudson says. Vehicles such as the Ford Escape, a more environmentally friendly gas-electric hybrid, or the Honda CRV, are much smaller and lower to the ground than a standard SUV, such as a Ford Explorer, which is built around the basic framework of a truck.

An April 2004 article by Consumer Reports noted that sedans were the best cars for teen drivers because they offer better handling in emergency situations, which helps avoid crashes. At the top of the list were the Honda Accord and the Volkswagen Passat.

Consumer Reports did recommend four small car-based SUVs, including the Subaru Forester and the Ford Escape, because they have a lower risk of rollover and better emergency handling.

Gabriel Shenhar, senior auto test engineer for Consumer Reports, who worked on the study, says they looked at SUVs because some parents feel safe with that choice and want a vehicle that will allow their children to bring their things back and forth to college.

But "if you don't need all-wheel drive and you don't need to haul stuff, there's nothing wrong with driving a good family sedan,"Shenhar says.

One lawyer who specializes in product liability cases, says he has handled numerous suits against SUV manufacturers that involve vehicle instability and handling problems. Some involved new drivers, he says.

While he says he wouldn't recommend an SUV for an experienced driver, let alone someone who recently got a license, he says some newer models of popular SUVs, including the Ford Explorer and Cadillac Escalade, are available with electronic stability control, a system designed to correct a vehicle if it begins to slide or spin.

Whatever vehicle, parents should involve children in the process of buying it, says Michael Riera, author of Uncommon Sense for Parents With Teenagers.

He suggests that children do the research on various makes and models they are interested in. They could also look for information on the dangers that teen drivers face. "The bottom line is the parents have to okay it," Riera says.

Hudson says he thinks SUVs require a different way of handling than a regular sedan. But while it may be easier for adults to adapt, teens may not be able to take the same control if they get into an accident, which they are more apt to do.]]> Texas Jury Rules Against Ford in Explorer Rollover http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9530 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9530
The jury in Zavala County District Court ordered Ford to pay $31 million in compensatory damages in the case, according to a Ford spokesperson.

Two of the four occupants in the 2000-model Explorer were killed in the rollover accident in May 2003.

Ford said it will appeal the verdict.

Ford is battling scores of lawsuits over the safety of Explorers manufactured through the 2001 model year.]]> Ford Class Action Moves Ahead in California http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9531 Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9531
The class certified by the court generally includes persons who purchased or leased Ford Explorers in California during the period from 1990 through August 2000. According to evidence presented to the court, Ford sold over 440,000 Explorers in California during that time period.

It was in August 2000 that Firestone initiated a recall of tires used on the Ford Explorer because of the large number of fatalities that occurred when Explorers rolled over after the tread separated from their tires. The plaintiffs allege that further investigation revealed that Ford had suggested underinflating the tires to conceal the Explorer's rollover problems.

Ford's internal documents indicate that Ford ignored its engineers' advice that the Explorer SUV needed design revisions to prevent rollover accidents and fatal injuries, according to a Bloomberg news article of February 2, 2005.

In 2004, Ford lost 2 Explorer rollover cases at trial, including a verdict in San Diego of $150 million, after reduction by the trial judge, and a $5.3 million verdict in Fort Myers, Florida. In addition to the California class action case, there are about two dozen trials claiming defects in Explorers that are set to take place this year.]]> Study: SUV Drivers More Likely To Die In Accidents http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8407 Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8407
According to a survey conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, drivers of small and medium-sized SUVs are now 11 percent more likely to die than someone in a car.

This safety gap is the widest ever recorded.

Researchers say SUVs can be prone to roll over - and that can make them more dangerous.]]> Feds Link Injuries to Weak Roofs http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10952 Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10952
Automakers have contended for years that there’s no solid evidence of a correlation between roof strength and the likelihood of injury and death in rollover accidents.

The new findings, however, could provide crucial supporting evidence for federal officials seeking to strengthen a 33-year-old roof strength standard that many safety advocates say is far too weak to protect U.S. motorists, particularly as rollover-prone SUVs and pickups proliferate.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which published the study this month, said it plans to propose tougher roof strength requirements by year’s end. The conclusions support earlier NHTSA research that found a link between crushed roofs and deaths.

“We want to make sure what we propose has a basis in reality,” said Rae Tyson, NHTSA spokesman. “This indicates the direction we are contemplating has some scientific research behind it.”

General Motors Corp. spokesman Chris Preuss said company experts would have to review the study before issuing any statement. But Preuss said roof strength was not the most important factor in reducing fatalities in rollover crashes.

“We know unquestionably through statistics that most rollover deaths and injuries occur when unbelted occupants are ejected from the vehicle,” Preuss said. “The seat belt is the first and best safety device in securing the occupant and preventing injury.”

Disputes expected

Rollover crashes are one of the leading causes of death on U.S. highways. In newly released data, NHTSA said 10,376 Americans died in rollover crashes in 2003 about one-third of all passenger-vehicle highway deaths.

And each year, an estimated 7,000 people are killed or severely injured in rollovers in which the roof crushed, according to federal statistics.

Automakers are expected to oppose any sweeping changes to the roof-strength requirements for cars and trucks, which could add cost and weight to millions of vehicles.

The companies currently are fighting hundreds of lawsuits in courtrooms around the country arising from rollover accidents, leaving them potentially liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. In June, Ford lost a record $368 million verdict in a San Diego rollover case involving a crushed roof on an Explorer SUV.

NHTSA officials have been reviewing the latest research since early this year. It was published on the Department of Transportation’s Web site earlier this month.

In the new study, NHTSA researchers examined 273 severe rollover crashes between 1997 and 2000. The cases were culled from NHTSA’s National Automotive Sampling System, a cross-section of crashes meant to be statistically representative of all U.S. crashes.

In one important conclusion, NHTSA found there was a clear statistical correlation between the amount a roof intruded into the passenger compartment and the severity of injury. In cases where occupants weren’t injured, the vehicles averaged 16 centimeters of lost headroom due to roof intrusion. In accidents with the most severe injuries, the vehicles lost lost an average of 24 centimeters of headroom in the rollover crashes.

“This just reinforces our view that improvements to the roof-crush standard are necessary,” said Henry Jasny, general counsel for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, a Washington safety watchdog group.

Tougher test

In 1971, GM and Ford Motor Co. led an industrywide effort to persuade federal officials to adopt a minimum standard for roof strength but only after their vehicle fleets failed the government’s first proposed test, according to internal corporate documents examined by The Detroit News.

Furthermore, automakers over the years have fought potential upgrades to the roof-strength standard, even while their own European operations build and test stronger roofs.

The new NHTSA study indicates that the agency is leaning toward toughening the roof-strength test, known as Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216. NHTSA said damage patterns produced by the existing test do not match what its researchers found in real-world crashes. But by increasing the force applied to the test, the agency did produce results similar to those in the crash files.

In the 216 test, one side of the roof must support one and a half times the unloaded weight of the vehicle. For cars, the test applies a maximum of 5,000 pounds of force.

To address the proliferation of bigger trucks and SUVs, NHTSA attempted in 1989 to apply the regulation to vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds. But the Big Three lobbied against it and NHTSA gave in, agreeing only to test vehicles that weigh 6,000 pounds or less. In effect, the heaviest trucks and SUVs, mainstream products like the Dodge Durango, Lincoln Navigator and Chevy Tahoe, are technically exempt from the 216 test.

Safety advocates want NHTSA to design a much tougher test, a crash test similar to what vehicles undergo in actual rollovers. NHTSA researchers say they have not been able to devise a crash test that produces the same results every time, a legal requirement for any new safety standard.

Donald Friedman, a former GM engineer and roof strength expert who has testified on behalf of dozens of plaintiffs in product liability cases, said NHTSA should be looking to devise a test that mimics real-world rollovers rather than strengthening the existing test.

NHTSA to push updates

The agency’s findings are important in justifying any call for stronger roofs. Automakers argue that most injuries in accidents where passengers stay in the vehicle during a rollover are caused by occupants flying out of their seats and into the roof. Industry researchers say the government has not proved that stronger roofs would help reduce injuries and fatalities.

But NHTSA’s new study contradicts auto industry-sponsored research that has cast doubt on the safety benefits of stronger roofs.

NHTSA’s Tyson cautioned that improving roof strength alone would prevent only a fraction of rollover fatalities. The agency is expected to combine new requirements in roof strength with requirements for improved safety belts and other ways to reduce head injuries to save more lives.

“There is no regulation that will ever be 100 percent effective,” Tyson said.

NHTSA is expected to issue a proposal for new roof-strength requirements later this year. The proposed regulation will be reviewed by the Department of Transportation and the White House before being made public.

Safety advocates welcomed the study, saying it is another hurdle that the agency must clear before proceeding to its long-anticipated rule-making push.

“This tells us where NHTSA is going,” said Sean Kane, head of Safety Research & Strategies, a Massachusetts firm that has carefully tracked the government’s safety research. “The agency is setting the foundation for its upcoming rule-making.”
]]> Safety Data Give SUVs Poor Grade In Rollover Tests http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8346 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8346
Of the 36 SUVs tested on a track for their inclination to roll over, 13 tipped up on two wheels the first step in a rollover. The tests were performed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which has been criticized for issuing potentially confusing test results on SUVs earlier this year because so many vehicles were getting the same scores. Yesterday's results were the federal agency's attempt to offer clearer comparisons.

Detroit is already suffering from slowing SUV sales, while high gasoline prices and safety concerns have made many Americans rethink their ardor for the vehicles. And even though the new safety results could help car buyers choose the safest SUVs, they also put sobering stress on the safety question. That could make it even harder for auto makers, already forced to provide costly discounts and low-interest financing, to move these vehicles off dealer lots.

The SUV slowdown is a remarkable turnabout for a segment of the industry that was once one of the auto makers' strongest profit centers. Pressure, though, has increased as Japanese auto makers have brought out competitive models and as external forces mostly safety concerns and gas prices have taken greater hold. More people are now defecting from traditional truck-based SUVs than ever; about 40% of people are trading in a truck-based SUV for something else, according to Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research. That compares with about 8% in 1999. The defections partly reflect concerns about rollovers, he said.

Earlier this year, the NHTSA estimated that 4,451 people died last year in SUV accidents, an 11% increase from 2002. Rollovers occurred in about 61% of those fatal accidents. Tomorrow, the agency is expected to announce final traffic-fatality figures for 2003 that are significantly lower than the previous estimate of 43,220 and lower than the total of 42,815 deaths reported in 2002. A larger-than-expected drop in the number of alcohol-related fatalities is expected to be cited as one reason for the lower numbers.

The NHTSA's new test has already had an effect on one auto maker. Last week, General Motors Co. recalled 250,000 Saturn Vues, after the SUV's left rear suspension system failed during NHTSA's new rollover test. The auto maker hasn't yet said how much that recall will cost.

Through July, sales of traditional, truck-based SUVs were up just 1.3%, according to Ward's Automotive Reports. And even those higher sales were heavily driven by incentives, such as big "cash back" awards. In fact, incentives are what are stabilizing the traditional SUV market right now. Mr. Spinella points to the Chevrolet Tahoe, noting that GM is giving $5,000 cash back and dealers he's hearing from are adding another $5,000 out of their own profit. "If you're getting a $10,000 discount on a Tahoe, you're going to pull somebody into the segment that was otherwise thinking of a big station wagon," said Mr. Spinella.

Sales of car-based SUVs, or crossovers, are up 16% this year, and have been selling with lower incentives than their traditional counterparts. In June and July, crossovers carried an average cash rebate of just $2,100, compared with $3,500 for all SUVs and $4,300 for full-size SUVs, according to Power Information Network, an affiliate of researcher J.D. Power and Associates.

Ford Motor Co., for one, has been hurt by these new auto economics. In the late 1990s, profits from its best-selling Explorer and other SUVs allowed the company to expand its lineup, acquiring Volvo and Land Rover. Currently, Ford is offering $4,500 cash back for the Explorer.

Yesterday's rankings by the NHTSA could add to Ford's problems. The company's SUVs rated among the lowest in the test. Only its Volvo XC90 achieved a four-star rating.

"This will basically end up being a giant negative for Ford," Mr. Spinella said. He pointed to the two-wheel-drive Explorer Sport Trac, which came in last in the rankings and was given almost a 35% chance of rolling over in a single-vehicle crash.

"Our real-world data do not suggest that the [Explorer Sport Trac] performs worse than comparable vehicle makes and types," said Kristen Kinley, a Ford spokeswoman. "With regard to the rating system as a whole, while we believe the NHTSA rating system has some value, we don't think it's the most effective indicator of how vehicles perform in the real world," Ms. Kinley said.

Rollovers have been on drivers' minds since the summer of 2000, when Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires began rolling over with such frequency and force that Congress investigated. Nearly 300 people died in Explorers with those tires. Since then, the industry has done several things to address rollovers, including lowering a vehicle's center of gravity and giving more SUVs independent suspension, which helps stabilize the vehicle.

Late last month Ford announced it would make rollover sensors and electronic stability control standard on the Explorer as well as the Mercury Mountaineer and the Lincoln Aviator and Navigator. The technologies detect if a vehicle is starting to roll and begin a series of countermeasures, including applying brakes to individual wheels. In the 2004 Explorer, the system cost $795.

Jim Padilla, Ford's chief operating officer, said last week that Ford made the change because it puts Ford "ahead of the pack." He added that it "makes a safe vehicle even safer."

Perhaps most damaging for Ford, its popular small Escape SUV was among the vehicles that tipped up on two wheels in the new test. The Escape was one of the first American SUVs to be built on a car underbody, and helped pave the way for the fastest-growing segment of the new-car market, crossover vehicles.

Their popularity has been driven, in part, by the perception that such vehicles are less prone to rollovers. In 2000, auto makers sold fewer than 500,000 crossovers, but demand is expected to grow to 2.5 million vehicles a year by 2008, according to CSM Worldwide.

While the Escape didn't perform well, other crossover vehicles generally scored high in the NHTSA's new ratings. The highest-ranking SUVs in the rollover ratings, including the Chrysler Pacifica, Nissan Murano and Honda Pilot, are all built on car platforms.

Mike Jackson, a senior manager in charge of North American vehicle forecasts at automotive consulting company CSM Worldwide, believes it's "too early to tell" how NHTSA's new information on the Ford Escape's rollover propensity may affect sales but added that Ford will have to do everything it can to defend its safety image.

"Ford wants to make sure that its SUVs continue to be perceived as safe in every respect, especially following its situation with the Explorer," Mr. Jackson said. "They should go out of their way."

The NHTSA released the detailed rollover crash results yesterday partly to ward off criticism that it hasn't done enough to force auto makers to make SUVs more resistant to rollovers. Dr. Jeffrey Runge, the NHTSA's administrator and a former emergency physician, says he favors providing consumers with more information about rollover likelihood than issuing new rollover-resistance standards.

"We think we can accomplish a lot with consumer information, with educating the public," Dr. Runge says. The agency plans to expand the program eventually to also include detailed rankings on front- and side-crash resistance.

The government also released rollover results yesterday for 20 passenger cars, eight pickups and four vans. Only one vehicle the four-door Mazda RX-8 received a five-star rating, the highest. None of the passenger cars or minivans tipped up during testing. Only two trucks tipped up -- the Tacoma 4x2 and 4x4 extended-cab pickups.

Until this year, government rollover ratings were based on mathematical tests, not test-drive results. The agency now uses a so-called fishhook test, in which the vehicle moves at a steady speed of 35 miles per hour to 50 mph while the driver first makes a sharp left turn, then overcorrects to the right. Auto makers complain the test is overly harsh and represents only about 5% of what happens in real-world rollover crashes, since most SUVs roll over after they run off the road or hit a curb or another object. The government compensates for that concern by weighting the test less than its mathematical test in the vehicle's overall rollover score.

Concern about rollover resistance is growing because there are simply more SUVs and light trucks on the roads. About 40% of all vehicles on U.S. roads are light trucks including minivans, SUVs and pickups. With light trucks outpacing passenger cars in sales, manufacturers and federal regulators are turning more attention to electronic stability-control systems that can help drivers maintain control and avoid a crash. Federal regulators are now working on a new test that would evaluate the vehicle's handling; however, NHTSA officials say there's no assurance yet they'll actually adopt the new test.]]> New Auto Tests Focus On Rollovers http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8347 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8347
The Mazda RX-8 sports car is best, having only an 8 percent chance of rolling over in a single-vehicle crash. Worst is Ford Explorer Sport Trac two-wheel-drive sport utility vehicle, which the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says has a 34.8 percent chance of rolling.

Rollovers are only 3 percent of accidents, but cause about one-third of traffic deaths, according to NHTSA chief Jeffrey Runge. He says automakers have a "corporate responsibility" to reduce rollovers.

At the same time, Runge says safety belts would prevent most rollover deaths. About 75 percent of those who die in rollovers are unbelted, he says, and about 80 percent of those would live if belted, according to Runge.

NHTSA scores only 68 2004-model cars and trucks, out of about 300 on sale. The agency ranks 36 SUVs, 20 cars, eight pickups, four minivans - models NHTSA thinks people are likely to buy. Popular vehicles missing from the list could be tested next year.

Best:

SUV Chrysler Pacifica four-wheel drive, 13 percent

Pickup Chevrolet and GMC full-size, two-wheel-drive models, 15.9 percent

Minivan Nissan Quest, 12.1 percent

Worst:

Pickup Toyota Tacoma extended cab, four-wheel-drive, 28.3 percent

Minivan: Toyota Sienna, 15.9 percent

Car Subaru Legacy Outback, 15.5 percent

To calculate the chance of rolling over, NHTSA combines results of its emergency-swerve tests with a mathematical formula that takes into account a vehicle's height, width and center of gravity.

Vehicles that tipped onto two wheels during the swerve test were penalized 3 to 5 percentage points. Tacoma and several SUVs, including the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon four-wheel drive, did tip.

Consumer advocates had complained that NHTSA's star ratings were too general, not differentiating between, for example, a model that barely earned four stars and one that nearly got five, the top rating. NHTSA will continue to use stars, and augment them with the rollover-possibility percentages.

Joan Claybrook, former NHTSA chief who heads the consumer group Public Citizen, says the new ratings are an improvement, and they should be posted on the vehicle's price sticker. Claybrook says she'd also like a letter grade - A to F, as in school - to make it quickly obvious how a vehicle ranks.

Though some Ford Motor and Toyota vehicles score poorly, spokeswomen for both companies say the vehicles have better real-world crash-safety records than the NHTSA numbers suggest.

BEST AND WORSE

Best and worst performers among 2004 vehicles tested so far.* A five-star rating is the highest for the test, which measures the chances of a vehicle rolling over in a severe crash.

Vehicle Stars Chance of rollover (as a percentage)
Passenger Cars
Best: Mazda RX-8 ***** 8
Worst: Subaru Outback wagon **** 15.5
Pickup trucks
Best: Chevrolet Silverado 4x2 **** 15.9
Worst: Toyota Tacoma 4x4 *** 28.3
Sport Utility Vehicles
Best: Chrysler Pacifica 4x4 **** 13
Worst: Ford Explorer Sport Trac 4x2 ** 34.8
Vans
Best: Nissan Quest **** 12.1
Worst: Toyota Sienna **** 15.9 ]]> SUV ROLL CALL http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8350 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8350
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study of 2004 model vehicles including cars, SUV and vans showed that three different Ford Explorer models have nearly a 28 percent chance of landing on their sides when the driver turns the wheel sharply.

The Explorer Sport Trac two-wheel drive was slammed as the vehicle most prone to rollover, with a likelihood of 34.8 percent.

It was given only two stars out of a possible five.

Another Explorer, the four-door, two-wheel drive version, was tied for second worst among the SUVs studied.

It was given three stars and a 28.3 percent chance of flipping tied with the Mercury Mountaineer, GMC Yukon and the Chevy Tahoe.

Safety experts concluded years ago that SUVs are more prone to roll than passenger vehicles in single-car crashes.

But this year for the first time, the NHTSA assigned a percentage risk for rollover in addition to its star ratings, which are based on a mathematical calculation of the vehicle's measurements and a road test including very sharp turns.

Ford is countering the study's claims by saying private studies show the Explorer models perform the same or better than other SUVs.

"We're trying to work through the data and see how NHTSA's applying these numbers," said Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley.

"While we believe the NHTSA rating system has some value, we don't believe it's a good indicator of how a vehicle performs in the real world."

The Chrysler Pacifica topped the list as the highest rated SUV. It was given four stars and a calculated 13 percent chance of rolling over.

The only vehicle to be awarded five stars was the Mazda RX-8 passenger car which has a mere 8 percent chance of flipping.

The highest-rated van was the Nissan Quest. It has only a 12.1 percent chance of rolling over and was given four stars.

Rollovers represent a quarter of all traffic deaths, which rose to 43,000 in 2003, statistics show.

Rollover deaths in SUVs rose by 10 percent to 2,700 in 2003, according to government figures.]]> SUVs Rank Lowest In Rollover Ratings http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10953 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10953
Until now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has provided a five-star rating system that was criticized by safety advocates because it sometimes gave better scores to vehicles that tip during a road test than those that stayed on all four tires.

The new government information indicates how likely on a percentage basis a vehicle is to roll over in a single-vehicle crash.

Among 2004 models the agency tested, the five-star Mazda RX-8 four-door sedan has an 8 percent chance of rolling over the lowest of all vehicles tested.

The two-star Ford Explorer Sport Trac 4x2 sport utility vehicle has a 34.8 percent chance of rolling over in a single vehicle crash, the agency said.

A slew of the most popular Detroit-made SUVs were also near the bottom of the ratings, including the 4x2 versions of the Mercury Mountaineer, Ford Explorer, GMC Yukon and Chevy Tahoe. All of the SUVs have a 28 percent chance of rolling over in a single vehicle accident.

On the whole, SUVs were significantly more rollover prone than cars and minivans.

The agency awards five stars to vehicles that roll over 10 percent of the time or less, and one star to vehicles that roll over between 40 and 50 percent of the time.

“We believe we can accomplish a lot with consumer information,” NHTSA Administrator Jeffrey Runge said at a press conference. “If no one buys vehicles prone to roll over, manufacturers will stop making them.”

The new information also will give car buyers a gauge of how well a vehicle stacks up against models in the same class, such as minivans, SUVs or pickup trucks.

Though rollover crashes only represent about 3 percent of accidents, they account for more than 10,000 death,  a third of annual highway fatalities.

Automakers support the agency’s move to provide more consumer information, but caution shoppers not to put too much weight on one measurement.

A vehicle’s stability can be influenced by an array of factors, such as height, the width between tires, the design of its suspension system, tire grip, the location of the engine mount and even the weight of its sunroof, NHTSA engineers say. About 75 percent of passengers who die in a rollover accident also aren’t belted, government data shows.

Also, while having several passengers can make a low-riding sedan even more stable, high-riding sport utility vehicles become even more unstable with extra people, said R. David Pittle, senior vice president of technical policy at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports magazine.

“Rather than understand it, the important thing for consumers to know is there is a test devised by the government” to measure it, said Pittle, who thinks the road test is a “very good indicator of vehicle safety.”

“We will never recommend a vehicle that has failed this test,” added Pittle, who considers a vehicle that tips off two tires a failure. “There are too many safer alternatives.”

NHTSA uses three sets of tests and information to compute the scores. It uses real-world accident data, a calculation that essentially measures center of gravity, and a dynamic test maneuver whereby a vehicle is quickly turned one way and then sharply the other way.

That so-called “fishhook” test, unveiled in October, is supported by safety advocates but they believe NHTSA should give more weight to the test results, particularly whether a vehicle “tipped” or not.

For example, the Toyota Tacoma 4x2 extended cab pickup truck got the second highest rating, four stars, even though it tipped during the test.

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. said NHTSA’s moving rollover test is extremely severe and leads to only 5 percent of all actual rollovers. In real-world driving situations, most vehicles are stable and resist rollover, GM and Ford say.

“It’s very difficult to rate an automobile like you rate a movie, because whenever you summarize information you always lose something,” said Gloria Bergquist, vice president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group that represents Detroit and other automakers. “We encourage consumers to become very informed about many different aspects of their vehicle, not to just look at one star rating or another.”

Ford Motor Co. spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said the ratings have some value, but the automaker doesn’t think they are an accurate reflection of real-world crash statistics.

“It’s an estimate of risk, but it’s not a prediction of a likelihood of a crash,” Kinley said.

To enhance safety of SUVs, which are more prone to roll over, some automakers are already installing electronic stability technology, which senses when a vehicle starts to tip and automatically slows it down.

Such systems come standard on several General Motors Corp. vehicles, including the Cadillac Escalade and the GMC Denali, said GM spokesman Chris Preuss.

Ford announced last month that it will equip its best-selling Ford Explorer and three other sport utility vehicles with standard anti-rollover technology, beginning with 2005 models.

A former NHTSA administrator said automakers ought to be forced to demonstrate their vehicles’ safety.
]]> U.S. Releases New Ratings for Rollovers http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8339 Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8339
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's old rollover ratings were based on height and width as well as a test that includes a sharp turn at up to 50 mph. Five stars are given to vehicles that roll over 10 percent of the time or less, and one star to vehicles that roll over between 40 and 50 percent of the time.

The new system, available Monday on NHTSA's Web site, retains the star rating but also lets consumers compare a particular vehicle's grade to the ratings of similar vehicles. The system also shows consumers the percentage chance the vehicle would roll over in a crash similar to NHTSA's test.

For example, NHTSA's system gave the 2004 Chrysler Pacifica sport utility vehicle four stars, and showed that ratings for SUVs generally ranged from one to four stars. The graph also shows the Pacifica's percentage chance of rollover 13 percent was the lowest of all SUVs.

NHTSA gave Ford's front-wheel drive Explorer Sport Trac the worst rollover rating of any SUV and said its chance of rollover was 34.8 percent.

So far, the system only rates vehicles from the 2004 model year.

Rollovers represent only 3 percent of all crashes, but they are especially severe. They are responsible for one-third of the 43,200 deaths on U.S. highways each year, said NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge. That's partly because of vehicle engineering and partly because people aren't using seat belts, Runge said, noting that three-quarters of those who die in rollovers aren't belted.

Runge said the new system was designed to make NHTSA's ratings more user-friendly. He encouraged consumers to consider the rollover rating when they're buying a vehicle.

``If no one buys vehicles that are prone to roll over, then manufacturers will stop making them,'' he said.

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. said NHTSA's moving rollover test is extremely severe and representative of only about 5 percent of actual rollovers.

``We believe that in real-world driving situations, these vehicles are stable and resist rollover,'' said GM spokesman Jim Schell.

Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said data indicate Ford vehicles are more rollover resistant than NHTSA suggests.

NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson acknowledged the rollover test mimics a rare type of crash. But he said a vehicle's tendency to roll over can be predicted accurately based on its height and weight, which is a significant part of the agency's rating.

The ratings do not necessarily consider any equipment designed to prevent rollovers, such as electronic stability control systems. NHTSA only tests vehicles with stability control if it is a standard feature or if more than half of consumers choose it as an option. Stability control systems are now available on about 10
percent of vehicles in the United States.]]> U.S. Expands Vehicle Rollover Ratings http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8340 Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8340
A five-star rating is the highest, meaning the vehicle's chance of rolling over is 10 percent or less. A two-star rating means a vehicle's chance of rolling over is between 30 and 40 percent. Here are the best and worst performers among 2004 vehicles tested so far.

Category Star RatingPercent chance of rollover

Passenger Cars
Best: Mazda RX-8
Five stars
8 percent

Worst: Subaru Outback wagonFour stars 15.5 percent

Pickup trucks

Best: Chevrolet Silverado 4x2Four stars

15.9 percent

Worst: Toyota Tacoma 4x4Three stars 28.3 percent

Sport Utility Vehicles

Best: Chrysler Pacifica 4x4 Four stars

13 percent

Worst: Ford Explorer Sport Trac 4x2
Two stars 34.8 percent

Vans
Best: Nissan QuestFour stars 12.1 percent

Worst: Toyota SiennaFour stars 15.9 percent ]]> Federal Regulators Release a New Rollover Ranking System http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8341 Mon, 09 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8341
The ranking system compares the rollover risk of most 2004 model cars and trucks, offering consumers a precise way to compare a vehicle's risk of being in a rollover at least by the government's reckoning in accidents that don't involve other vehicles.

Previously, the government has used star ratings to indicate rollover risk. That system, which will continue, has been criticized as not providing enough distinction between vehicles, because most earn either three or four stars.

This year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration tested 68 new models. Of those, the Ford Explorer Sport Trac, a cross between a pickup and an S.U.V., had the highest rollover risk, with a 35 percent chance of rolling over during a single-vehicle accident.

That is more than four times the risk of the best performer, a four-door Mazda RX-8 sedan, which has about an 8 percent risk, the agency said. Mazda is an affiliate of the Ford Motor Company, which makes the Explorer.

As expected, cars performed much better than S.U.V.'s because they ride closer to the ground and are thus more stable. But the new ratings also show wide differences among vehicles of the same type.

For instance, the Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck, made by General Motors, had ratings ranging from 16 percent to 18.5 percent, compared to rating as high as 28.3 percent for the Toyota Tacoma pickup.

"This is a problem that continues to produce about a third of our occupant fatalities every year, even though they are less than 3 percent of our crashes," said Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge, the administrator of the traffic safety agency.

The new rankings information, he said, "does arm the consumer with a little more sophisticated information."

Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said, "It's difficult to rate an automobile like you rate a movie."

"This is just one rating," she added. "We urge people to look at all information and make a judgment, including the front impact and the side impact ratings."

The new rollover rankings, along with front and side impact test ratings, are available on www.safercar.gov.

The agency also revealed that the Ford Escape S.U.V., and by extension the similarly built Mazda Tribute, tipped up on two wheels during a rollover test. Those vehicles were assessed rollover risks between 21 and 24 percent.

Kristin Kinley, a spokeswoman for Ford, said, "While we believe the N.H.T.S.A. rating system has some value, we don't think it's the most effective indicator of how vehicles perform in the real world."

Consumer groups have said the agency needs to do more to get the ratings to the public.

"We compliment the agency on improving its presentation," said Joan Claybrook, the president of Public Citizen, but she added that "significant flaws remain."

She said the information is still not easy enough to find and she wants the agency to create a minimum performance threshold for rollover risk.

While the Explorer Sport Trac was the worst performer overall, the 2004 Subaru Outback wagon ranked as the worst-performing passenger car, a category that includes sedans and station wagons, with a 15.5 percent rollover risk. Its performance was in line with other vehicles that combine aspects of wagons and S.U.V.'s, like the Nissan Murano. The Chrysler Pacifica, one such vehicle, was the best performer among S.U.V.'s, with ratings raging from 13 to 14 percent.

Rollovers accidents, which kill more than 10,000 Americans per year, have been one of the biggest traffic-safety issues in recent years because of the popularity of sport utility vehicles and large pickup trucks. The rollover risks are exacerbated by factors such as drunken driving and people not wearing seatbelts.

While the high ground clearance of sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks can make drivers feel more secure and in control, it also creates a higher center of gravity, leading to less stability. But S.U.V.'s and other light duty trucks are subject to considerably less stringent fuel economy regulations, providing manufacturers a powerful incentive to build them.

Subaru, for instance, has raised the ground clearance of the 2005 model Outback, and made other changes, to reclassify it as a light duty truck and meet the lower standard. A Subaru official said today that the company expects its rollover performance to improve when 2005 models are tested because other dimensions have been changed as well.

The four minivans tested by the agency were assessed rollover risks from 12 to 16 percent, while several S.U.V.'s. had risk ratings above 25 percent, including the Chevrolet Tahoe, GMC Yukon, and some versions of the Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer.

The government started conducting rollover tests this year at the direction of Congress, which ordered the agency to create a track test in the wake of a string of fatal rollover crashes in the late 1990's involving Ford Explorers equipped with Firestone tires.

In the new tests, vehicles are driven through as many as 10 fishhook maneuvers, a jarring series of turns intended to replicate what happens when drivers momentarily lose control and veer to overcompensate. Last week, G.M. said it would recall its Saturn Vue S.U.V. because its suspension broke during the test.

Previously, the government assessed rollover risk based on a mathematical calculation taking into account a vehicle's dimensions. That calculation continues to be the agency's main criteria for assigning risk percentages.

Regulators are also researching adding a handling test with its own star rating. One reason is that changing tire specifications can make a vehicle less prone to rollover but also less maneuverable.

"The idea of the handling test is, you can achieve good rollover resistance by degrading the handling of the vehicle, and that's not something we want," said Garrick Forkenbrock, a research engineer at the traffic safety agency. "It's no good if it's robbing Peter to pay Paul." ]]> Big Saturn SUV recall http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8331 Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8331
The recall by the General Motors division affects 246,433 VUEs made from 2002-2004. "We're not pleased with this, and we're working hard to see it never happens again," GM Vice Chairman John Devine said.

The left-rear suspension failed on VUEs in a test last month, and in June wheels twice collapsed during a 45-mph test with a sharp turn.

]]> More Detailed Rollover Rankings Out Monday http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8330 Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8330
The new list from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration augments, but does not replace, the agency's five-star rating safety system for vehicles. It is intended to give a more accurate assessment of vehicle stability than provided by the star system.

That system awards five stars to vehicles least likely to roll, dropping to one star for those very likely to roll, based on NHTSA tests and a formula that takes vehicle dimensions and center of gravity into account.

The new system will allow shoppers to distinguish, for instance, between a sport-utility vehicle that barely earns four stars and one that's stable enough to easily get four stars a distinction not possible using star rankings. NHTSA says that vehicles with four and five stars in the current system will score well in the new rankings.

While the rankings will include all types of vehicles, ratings of SUVs are most likely to cause a stir.

There were 456 more deaths in SUVs in 2003 than in 2002, and 55% of those were in rollover wrecks. NHTSA chief Jeffrey Runge has said SUVs can be very safe as long as "you don't roll over." No SUV receives the top, five-star, score in NHTSA's current ranking system.

Barry McCahill, president of SUV Owners of America, says the new rankings could mislead consumers, who "should also evaluate safety based on how vehicles perform in real crashes not just one test track result and one tape measurement of physical dimensions."

The agency has been ranking vehicles' tipsiness since 2001, using the formula. Starting with '04 models, some vehicles, mainly SUVs, also have undergone moving tests to gauge stability.

The SUVs that have scored highest, with four stars, are General Motors' traditional truck-based, midsize SUVs sold as the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, GMC Envoy, Oldsmobile Bravada and Isuzu Ascender; car-based, crossover SUVs Volvo XC90, Honda Pilot, Buick Rainier, Subaru Forester, and the truck-based Dodge Durango.

All other vehicles tested by NHTSA earned three stars, except the Ford Explorer SportTrac, which got two stars.

About 12 newly tested vehicles, not currently listed among NHTSA test rankings, will be among the rankings NHTSA will announce next week.

NHTSA will also release results of preliminary testing of stability-control systems, which detect when a vehicle is not heading in the direction a driver intends and use brakes and engine power to bring the vehicle back in line. NHTSA is expected to continue to offer qualified support for the systems. The agency has found it difficult to gauge their precise effectiveness because systems and vehicle suspensions differ.

Ford Motor announced last week that all of its SUVs will have stability control as standard equipment. All 2004 Toyota and Lexus SUV models have standard stability control.

In a NHTSA test last October, a Toyota 4Runner SUV with stability control kept all four wheels on the ground in swerves up to 50 miles per hour, while the same SUV without stability control would have rolled over in the test maneuver at 35 mph, NHTSA said.]]> Ford to Pay $369M in Rollover Accident http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8146 Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8146
A San Diego County jury on Thursday ordered Ford to pay $246 million in punitive damages to Benetta Buell-Wilson, after awarding her and her husband compensatory damages of more than $122.6 million two days earlier.

The verdict marked Ford's first loss after 11 victories in rollover lawsuits involving the Explorer, the nation's best-selling sport-utility vehicle.

The trial, which began March 15, involved a January 2002 accident on an interstate highway near Alpine, east of San Diego. Buell-Wilson swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled 4 1/2 times.

The 49-year-old San Diego mother of two offered to knock $100 million off the damage award if Ford recalled millions of Explorers and corrected the design flaws that she says left her wheelchair-bound.

"I'm hoping they'll fix what's out there because I don't want what's happened to me to happen to anyone else," Buell-Wilson said.

In a statement, Ford insisted the Explorer was safe.

"Although the offer makes a great sound bite, it doesn't change the facts: The Explorer meets or exceeds all federal safety standards. There is no defect with the Explorer," spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said. "The Explorer is an outstanding vehicle with a solid safety record and we will continue to aggressively defend our products."

Ford has sold more than 5 million Explorers since the vehicle was introduced in 1990, she said.

]]> Lawsuits Target Ford SuperCab Roof http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8640 Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8640
One case, however, stands out from the rest.

In December 2002, a Duval County, Texas, jury found that a crushed roof caused the side doors of a 2000-model SuperCab to burst open, ejecting Paul Alaniz and Laura Benavides to their deaths from the rolling pickup.

The verdict is believed to be the first time that a jury linked roof deformation to occupant ejection in a rollover accident.

Detroits Big Three automakers have long maintained that ejection is an entirely separate issue from the growing debate over federal standards governing roof strength.

But in Benavides v. Ford, the jury ruled that a crushed roof forced open the drivers door and the rear-hinged passenger door on the same side.

It was clearly a survivable accident if the doors had stayed closed, said the attorney for the Alaniz family.

Ford declined interview requests. In court, the automakers lawyers argued that the driver, Paul Alaniz, was solely at fault because he consumed alcohol on the evening of the accident, then lost control of his F-150 on a two-lane highway about 75 miles southwest of Corpus Christi.

The jury didnt agree, and awarded the Alaniz and Benavides families a combined $225 million one of the biggest automotive product-liability judgments on record.

Ford chose not to appeal the case and, instead, negotiated a confidential settlement, Wigington said.

A critical piece of evidence introduced at trial was a four-minute video of an F-150 SuperCab ejected off a moving dolly at about 45 miles per hour.

Ford commissioned an outside firm to do the test, primarily to show the jury how severe the accident was that killed Alaniz and Benavides.

Instead, the plaintiffs attorneys offered the video into evidence.

In the dolly-rollover test, the SuperCabs doors popped open on the drivers side, and test dummies were partially ejected from the vehicle.

Because of its barn-door style center-opening doors, the SuperCab has no B-pillars supporting the roof in the center of the truck.

Door latches failed

At the Benavides trial, former Ford engineer John Stilson, testified that latches fastening the front and rear drivers side doors failed because the roof caved in.

On the second roll, the drivers door latch failed because of the manner in which the roof crushed, said Stilson, testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Each year, more than 26,000 people are killed or seriously injured in rollover accidents, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nearly 7,000 deaths and serious injuries involve accidents where the vehicle roof crushed.

NHTSA only considers crushed roofs a factor in rollovers accidents where the occupants arent ejected. Safety experts, however, say deformed roofs do play a role in rollover ejections.

The roof-crush mode influences not only roof deformation, it can influence the risk of ejection, said Ken Digges of the National Crash Analysis Center at George Washington University, which is conducting an extensive roof crush study for NHTSA.

Crush-related ejections are usually tied to windshields or windows breaking in a rollover, with occupants ejected out the opening, said former General Motors Corp. engineer Donald Friedman, a frequent plaintiffs witness in roof crush lawsuits.

High rollover rate faulted

Critics claim the Ford F-150 SuperCab appears to have an abnormally high rate of ejections in rollovers. (The lawsuits against the SuperCab predate Fords redesign of its F-Series lineup for the 2004 model year.)

A total of 134 people were fatally ejected from F-Series SuperCabs from 1998 to 2001, according to a Ford internal document introduced at the Benavides trial.

The CrewCab version of the F-Series, which has four conventional doors with front hinges, accounted for 71 fatal ejections during the same period.

Even if an occupant is not ejected, the lack of B-pillars in the SuperCab weakens the overall roof structure, said the plaintiffs attorney.

Everyone, including everyone at Ford, knows the roof structure on these trucks simply will not protect people in rollover accidents, Watts said after a Texas jury awarded $18 million to Mario Castro, who was paralyzed in a SuperCab rollover.

In the Benavides trial, Ford lawyer Rosewell Page III said the SuperCabs roof exceeded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 by 43 percent. The vehicle was reasonably safe, he said.

But the circumstances of the accident convinced the jury otherwise.

On the evening of July 20, 2001, Paul Alaniz, 35, drove to a club in Kingsville, Texas, with three friends: Laura Benavides, 20; Juan Flores, 26; and Eluterio Elizondo, 24.

Alaniz, a physical-education teacher and youth football coach, drank at least two beers during the night out, according to trial testimony. His blood-alcohol level was 0.04 percent, half of the legal limit in Texas.

On the return trip, Alaniz drove with Benavides seated behind him. Flores and Elizondo were in the front and rear seats on the passenger side.

About 2:30 a.m., Alaniz lost control of the F-150. The truck tipped on the passenger side, and rolled three times off State Highway 2285, according to court records.

The roof on the drivers side the trailing side in the rollover was crushed severely. Both doors on the drivers side came open. Alaniz and Benavides were ejected an estimated 100 feet into a field of sagebrush and cactus.

Seat belts not used

But the doors on the passenger side stayed closed. Both Flores and Elizondo stayed in the vehicle and were uninjured.

None of the four were wearing seat belts.

The two on the side where the roof crushed and the doors popped open, they died, said Tony Alaniz, Pauls younger brother. The two on the right side where the doors stayed closed, they lived.

Page, Fords lawyer, blamed Paul Alaniz for the wreck.

If Mr. Alaniz had not lost control of this vehicle, there would be no accident and there would be no death, Page said.

The wreck, he said, was a violent accident.

Accidents happen every day, Page said in court. People die on the highway.

Tony Alaniz said his older brother was hardly a reckless driver.

He never had a speeding ticket in his life, never had a single citation for anything, he said. He didnt fall asleep. He went off the road, overcorrected, and the truck rolled over.

He wears a gold chain that he took off his brothers body at the accident scene nearly three years ago. Last month, Tony Alaniz visited the site, marked by two white, wooden crosses on the roadside.

Its just something thats so hard to accept, he said. You know, I had that same truck. Paul liked it so much he bought one just like it.

He sold his SuperCab after the accident, and now drives a four-door sedan. ]]> Thousands Killed, Hurt As Auto Roofs Collapse http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8641 Sun, 11 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8641
When it finally stopped, she tried to move. I was thinking get out, I had to get out, she said. I thought I was getting out.

But the Nebraska woman was paralyzed, her spinal cord crushed on impact with the metal roof that caved in around her.

Its the hidden risk in any rollover accident, whether the roof stays intact or collapses with catastrophic results.

Each year, an estimated 7,000 people are killed or severely injured in rollovers in which the roof crushed, according to federal statistics.

Yet Detroits Big Three automakers, armed with political muscle and reams of research, have fought costly upgrades to a 33-year-old roof-strength standard, even while their own European operations build and test stronger roofs.

General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. essentially drafted the regulation as it stands.

In 1971, the automakers led an industrywide effort to convince federal officials to adopt a minimum standard for roof strength but only after their vehicle fleets failed the governments first proposed test, according to internal corporate documents examined by The Detroit News.

The industry wanted something that will allow our vehicles to pass, Peter Bertelson, who headed Fords crash-test programs in the late 1960s, told The News.

Critics say the industry-backed test, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216, is too weak to save lives, particularly as rollover-prone SUVs and pickups proliferate.

Now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, under pressure from safety advocates and Congress, says its finally time to fix rule 216 and plans to propose a tougher standard later this year.

The stakes for automakers are enormous. Changes in roof structures could add cost and weight to millions of vehicles.

Its been known for quite some time that this is a standard that needs updating, NHTSA Chief Dr. Jeffrey Runge told The News.

His opinion is hardly shared by members of the Big Three.

There is no correlation between roof strength and the likelihood of injury in a rollover crash, said Robert Lange, GMs executive director for vehicle structure and safety integration.

That position seems incomprehensible to Shipler, a quadriplegic since her accident seven years ago.

If they dont think the roof matters, let them live a full day as a quad and see what it entails, said Shipler, 36, who won an $18.6 million lawsuit against GM last year.

Juries in Texas, California and Nebraska have repeatedly rejected Big Three-backed studies that deny a link between crushed roofs and injuries.

With huge judgments coming in, including a $225 million verdict against Ford in a roof crush case, safety groups have stepped up their campaign for a new roof-strength standard.

We think the auto manufacturers basic claim is not true, said Gerald Donaldson, director of the consumer group Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. Roof strength is absolutely critical.

NHTSA is looking hard at recent crash data to establish a direct relationship between collapsing roofs and catastrophic injuries.

In filings with NHTSA, GM, Ford and DaimlerChrysler contend there is no need for new standards.

But it is an industry divided, with the Big Threes own European operations Opel, Saab, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz performing rollover tests that far exceed the 216 standard.

NHTSA publishes safety ratings based on frontal- and side-impact crash tests, but consumers dont know how their vehicles roof will react to a rollover until it happens.

And it can occur in an instant, such as when Patrick Parker hit a deer and rolled his Ford F-250 pickup in northern Texas, and ended up a quadriplegic.

People have been telling NHTSA that 216 is inadequate for years, and they have done nothing, said Dena Parker, Patricks wife. How many more people have to die or end up like Patrick?

NHTSA backs down

The consequences of crushed roofs were clear to federal regulators as early as 1969.

Approximately 1,400 motor vehicle occupants were killed in that year by impact with roof structure in rollover accidents, the National Highway Safety Bureau, NHTSAs predecessor, said in 1971.

Engineers in Detroit grappled with their own analyses of rollover accident data. An internal study by Fords Automotive Safety Research Office dated July 8, 1968 reached some very basic conclusions.

People are injured by roof collapse, the Ford study said. The total number of nationwide deaths and injuries cannot be estimated but it is a significant number.

With the government considering its first roof-strength standard, GM and Ford conducted their own tests rolling cars over on ramps, dropping them upside down, loading pressure on the A-pillars that frame the windshield.

A series of inverted drop tests at Ford produced startling results, said Bertelson, the former manager of Fords Impact Dynamics Department.

We dropped 40 or 42 different cars on their roofs in 1968, said Bertelson, now retired and living in Arizona. The engineers who worked for me were just shocked. The roof strength was terrible.

At the urging of GM and Ford, federal regulators proposed a static test that applied specific pressure to both A-pillars. But on Jan. 8, 1971, five of six GM vehicles failed the test, according to documents on file in the Shipler case.

Two months later, Fords Working Safety Committee reported that current 1971-72 vehicles will not meet the requirements of the notice.

Ford put a price tag on passing the governments initial test. All car lines, as currently programmed, would require new A-pillars at a cost of $9 to $15 per car, Fords Safety and Emissions Programs Group said in a document dated March 22, 1971.

GM, Ford and Chrysler protested the two-pillar test. Ford questioned whether crushed roofs even posed a danger a direct contradiction of its own 1968 study.

The data do not implicate top intrusion as an automotive safety problem, Ford said in its April 5, 1971, comments to the agency.

NHTSA relented, reducing the load angles of the pressure test and limiting it to just one side of the vehicle.

But the agency did not back down from its original premise.

For non-ejected front seat occupants in rollover accidents, NHTSA said, serious injuries are more frequent when the roof collapses.

Trucks, SUVs at risk

When rule 216 went into effect in 1973, passenger cars outnumbered light trucks almost 5 to 1. But with the explosive growth of SUVs and pickups, light trucks make up more than half of all new vehicles sold today.

And with more trucks come more rollovers.

In the 216 test, one side of the roof must support one and a half times the unloaded weight of the vehicle. For cars, there is a 5,000-pound limit.

To address the onslaught of bigger trucks, NHTSA attempted in 1989 to apply the regulation to vehicles weighing up to 10,000 pounds. But the Big Three lobbied against it and NHTSA gave in, agreeing only to a 6,000-pound limit.

In effect, the heaviest trucks and SUVs, mainstream products like the Dodge Durango, Lincoln Navigator and Chevy Tahoe, are technically exempt from the 216 test.

Safety experts contend that automakers routinely design down to meet the bare-minimum requirements of 216.

Some manufacturers take weight out to reduce their strength-to-weight ratios down closer to the minimum, said Steve Forrest, senior engineer of the firm Safety Analysis and Forensic Engineering, which advises plaintiffs in lawsuits against automakers.

In 1999, Ford twice reduced the thickness of the steel in the A-pillars of its heavy-duty F-series pickups, according to internal documents subpoenaed in Patrick Parkers 2002 lawsuit against Ford.

The savings, the documents said, totaled $2.42 per truck.

The F-250 pickup that Patrick Parker was driving is one of the heaviest trucks on the market and not covered by rule 216.

What is the rationale in thinking if its heavier that it doesnt have to meet the standard? said Dena Parker. Its just crazy.

Ford declined interview requests on rule 216, referring inquiries to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a Washington-based industry trade group.

But the alliance, which also represents GM, DaimlerChrysler and other automakers, has little to say publicly.

We are conducting field research on roof strength, and it would be inappropriate to comment before we have collected or analyzed the data, said Eron Shosteck, an alliance spokesman.

DaimlerChrysler issued a brief statement on 216: Chrysler Group tests its vehicles beyond the requirements of the federal standard.

At GM, Lange said roof strength is one of many variables considered in designing a new car or truck.

We manage very deliberately the overall mass of the vehicle and its body structure, he said.

European manufacturers, including GMs Saab and Opel units, employ high-strength steel to improve the strength of roofs. But concerns about extra weight and cost preclude using stronger steel in mass-market domestic vehicles.

We try to provide safety performance without burdening consumers with added costs, Lange said.

He said GM does use high-strength steel in the United States when appropriate, but would not identify specific models. One is the 2004 Cadillac SRX, a luxury SUV that a GM product brochure says has extra steel to provide superior occupant protection.

Safety cages with stronger roofs have been common for years in European brands such as Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volkswagen and Volvo. To test roof strength, prototypes are rolled off a moving dolly to simulate actual accident conditions.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers rejects so-called dynamic rollover tests, calling them hopelessly unrepeatable. Yet dynamic tests designed to simulate real-world crashes are routine for European brands.

Why test beyond the minimum standard of 216?

If you look at Volvos history in safety, our target has always been to overachieve, said Hans Wikman, project manager for Volvos XC90 sport utility vehicle.

Human impact

Rule 216 has been under study by NHTSA since the early 1990s, but the path to a new roof-strength standard has taken a tortuous route.

While roof-strength has been on NHTSAs agenda for years, the agency has focused on other priorities such as air bags, child safety seats, and frontal- and side-impact standards.

An official public comment period on 216 has dragged on for 28 months, yielding thousands of pages of documents submitted from both sides of the issue.

NHTSA Chief Runge pledges to propose a new standard this year, but could be hamstrung by a battle in Congress over tying new safety rules to sweeping federal highway legislation.

Theres some distrust there because NHTSA has waited so long to upgrade 216, said Sean Kane, whose consulting firm, Strategic Safety, works with plaintiffs lawyers. But its an industry problem, and its getting worse.

Bertelson, who has testified in several lawsuits, looks back on Fords early roof-strength tests and questions why a federal safety standard written in the 1970s is still on the books.

Its long overdue, he said. This has been on my conscience for 30 years.

A mothers struggle

And in a tiny tract house on the outskirts of Lincoln, Neb., Penny Shipler wonders what her life would be like today if not for the accident that ravaged her spinal cord on the night of Sept. 11, 1997.

A single mother who waitressed at a local restaurant, Shipler accepted a ride home from work that night from a friend, Kenneth Long, in his 1996 Chevy S-10 Blazer.

Just before midnight, Long lost control of the SUV on a deserted stretch of highway.

The vehicle rolled at least four times, according to court testimony. The roof on the drivers side suffered marginal damage, and Long walked away from the wreck.

But the roof crushed down 8 inches on the passenger side. When police arrived at the scene, Shipler was hanging upside down, paralyzed from the neck down, her lap-and-shoulder belt still buckled.

Shipler sued GM and Long. Last September, after a five-week trial, a Lancaster County jury awarded Shipler $19.5 million in damages, a figure later reduced by the judge to $18.6 million.

GM is appealing the verdict. During the trial, the automaker argued that no roof would have stayed intact during such a violent accident. But the jury rejected the defense.

I felt GM was guilty, said juror Deena Douglas.

The roof is like an eggshell. Youre in a tank with an eggshell on top of your head, which is the most important part of your body. I dont get it.

The appeal process could drag on for two years, said, Shiplers attorney. For now, Shipler and her 6-year-old son, Keenan, subsist on about $800 a month in Social Security and disability checks.

She can move her arms, but has no feeling in her torso and lower body. Confined to a motorized wheelchair too big to fit through her bathroom door, Shipler counts on the help of her little boy to make it through each day.

A life-care specialist testified at her trial that Shipler will need at least $10 million worth of medical care and assistance in the future.

People say, Oh my God, you got $20 million, she said. Its not much fun, I dont think, to be a millionaire and be a quad.

On a snowy February afternoon, Shipler waited outside her home for a city bus to take her to the bank, a journey that takes her six hours to complete.

She tries not to be bitter that the deformed roof of an SUV sentenced her to a life of paralysis.

Of course you get angry, but you cant spend your life angry, she said. If (GM) does admit guilt or responsibility, theres a lot theyre going to have to change.

But it all seems unreal to her, how an obscure, decades-old federal safety rule still stands after thousands of injuries and deaths in rollover accidents where roofs crushed.

Their point right now is to worry about the cost of what its going to take to change the vehicle, she said. Well, look at the cost of what happens after the vehicle crashes. ]]> Automakers Face Choices, Tradeoffs In New Government Rollover Test http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8334 Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8334
For instance, they can turn to emerging technologies such as electronic stability control and, in particular, anti-roll control.

Carmakers also can make modest changes to suspensions and to weight distribution. Engineering experts say big changes would damage the handling feel or ride quality of vehicles.

"I don't expect to see wholesale, radical changes," says Scott Schmidt, manager of safety regulation for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Trucks will still look like trucks, he adds.

The new rules may help automakers put the rollover bugaboo to rest without a major disruption in business.

Federal regulators decided, after a 30-year debate, to subject vehicles to an extreme driving maneuver to test for rollover propensity. The test is called the fishhook because of the path the vehicle follows on the test track.

Dr. Jeffrey Runge, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, announced the plan at a test track in Ohio on Tuesday, Oct. 7.

Runge says rollover crashes are a growing danger, especially for light trucks. Rollover crashes killed 10,666 people in 2002, up 5 percent from the year before, according to NHTSA.

The likely big winners are suppliers of electronic ride-control systems.

"We are very, very excited about active roll control," says Aly Badawy, an engineering vice president at TRW Automotive Inc. He says his company's anti-roll control, which uses existing vehicle hydraulic power and antilock brake sensors, will be available in a couple of years at a reasonable cost. He would not say exactly how much.

Existing electronic stability controls are designed to keep vehicles out of potential roll situations. But they also are thought to help vehicles perform well in the fishhook test, says Jim Gill, spokesman for Continental Teves N.A. So manufacturers are likely to install more of those systems, too.

A stability control system automatically adjusts brakes and throttle to keep a vehicle from spinning sideways. An anti-roll system uses an actuator to adjust suspension components to prevent tipping up.

No vehicle will fail the government test. A vehicle may perform poorly, but there is no failing grade.

The rollover test is not a safety standard. It only extends the agency's existing consumer information programs.

Vehicles already get one to five stars based on how well they protect people in frontal and side impacts. They also get one to five stars for "rollover resistance'' based on measurements of wheel track and the height of the vehicle's center of gravity.

Beginning early next year, the results of the fishhook test will be used to supplement the rollover rating already given based on vehicle dimensions. Even the most rollover-prone vehicle will get one star.

NHTSA dropped plans to use a second driving maneuver called the J-turn.

Agency officials say they don't know how many vehicles will get the fishhook tests.

Congress has yet to enact a budget for NHTSA for the fiscal year that started Oct. 1. The agency says it will concentrate on testing more rollover-prone vehicles, especially SUVs and pickups.

Some safety advocacy groups, including Public Citizen, which was founded by Ralph Nader, still call for a safety standard - that is, a rule that would prevent the sale of vehicles that can't meet a minimum level of resistance to tipping over. The groups are asking Congress to enact such a standard.

Adoption of the rollover test, however, diminishes the already slim chances that a standard will be imposed.

Even David Pittle, senior vice president of Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, the chief champion of rollover testing, says the industry must focus on what is achievable. NHTSA concluded in 1994 that it could not devise a rollover standard.

Pittle says the new ratings will force car companies to make safer vehicles - just as they have made improvements to score better in the frontal and side-impact ratings.

"I take some heart from the fact that manufacturers do know how to do this," he adds.

Adrian Lund, senior vice president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research organization for auto insurers, says rollover testing is "not a magic elixir" but likely will lead to minor changes in vehicles.]]> NHTSA Says SUV Rollovers a Concern http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/6697 Tue, 02 Sep 2003 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/6697
According to NHTSA, most of the annual increase from 2001 can be attributed to rollover accidents involving SUVs. While rollovers represent a small percentage of all accidents, they are also a particularly deadly accident so that when they occur there are often fatalities.

NHTSA said this years statistics also highlighted another safety issue that is rising from increasing sales of light trucks and related to what happens to cars that collide with them. In head-on collisions of light trucks with cars, car occupants are three times more likely to die, according to NHTSA statistics. The chance of death in car-truck accidents rises even higher when cars are struck in the side by light trucks. ]]> SUVs Blamed For Rise In Deaths http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5809 Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5809
Thats the population of a small city, like Chapel Hill, N.C., said Dr. Jeffrey W. Runge, the chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

If somebody came in and had a chemical attack that wiped out the entire city, think of the public outcry and outrage from people in every corner of the country, Runge said.

So whats happening on the roads?

Automakers are quick to point to driver responsibility, or lack thereof. Certainly, not enough people wear seat belts and too many drink. But there is also another factor: the increase in the number of sport utility vehicles.

Rollovers of SUVs and pickup trucks accounted for more than half of the 734-death increase from 2001 to 2002, according to the traffic safety agency. Some independent safety advocates think that increasing use of seat belts, airbags and computer safety systems should have caused a dramatic decline in auto death rates but that the rise of rollover-prone vehicles has dampened their effect.

Rollovers account for a staggering 32 percent of automobile fatalities, more than 10,000 annually. And rollover deaths are increasing along with sales of light trucks SUVs, pickups and minivans. Since 1980, light trucks have grown from a fifth of the nations sales to more than half, and SUVs and pickups in particular are prone to upend because of their high centers of gravity.

Automakers, however, argue that rollovers are relatively infrequent and that SUVs are safer than cars in other types of crashes.

SUVs are two to three times more protective of their occupants in frontal, rear and side-impact crashes that make up 97.5 percent of all crashes, said Jay Cooney, the director of safety communications at General Motors, in a statement earlier this year. Rollovers, he said, accounted for only 2.5 percent of all crashes.

But auto safety advocates are not swayed by these arguments. Rollovers, they say, are a sort of traffic cancer uncommon but deadly that make SUVs slightly more dangerous for their own occupants than passenger cars.

You ask the industry about rollovers, and they say, People shouldnt drink and people should wear their seat belts, said R. David Pittle, senior vice president of technical policy for Consumers Union, the publisher Consumer Reports. But those are beside-the-point points. Theres no argument there.

We need to ask manufacturers what they can do in their design to make sure there wasnt a rollover to begin with, he said.

The industry also points out that driver behavior plays an important role in rollover fatalities. In fact, 70 percent of fatalities in such accidents involve occupants not wearing seat belts. Moreover, from 2001 to 2002, the deaths of occupants in alcohol-related crashes increased 7 percent in SUVs, which was more than the 3.6 percent increase in overall alcohol-related fatalities.

If every SUV occupant wore safety belts, wed save 1,000 lives per year, said Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the chief domestic lobbying group for most of the worlds major automakers.

But auto safety advocates are not swayed by these arguments. Rollovers, they say, are a sort of traffic cancer uncommon but deadly that make SUVs slightly more dangerous for their own occupants than passenger cars.

You ask the industry about rollovers, and they say, People shouldnt drink and people should wear their seat belts, said R. David Pittle, senior vice president of technical policy for Consumers Union, the publisher Consumer Reports. But those are beside-the-point points. Theres no argument there.

We need to ask manufacturers what they can do in their design to make sure there wasnt a rollover to begin with, he said.

The latest statistics make the new and improved federal tests on rollovers, expected later this year, all the more noteworthy. Congress mandated the tests in 2000 after a spate of rollovers in Ford Explorers with Firestone tires.

In the meantime, it seems, nothing will change until everything changes. We will make progress on rollovers when people buckle their belts, when they exercise judgment about what vehicles to buy and not buy those that are rollover prone and as manufacturers transition into more stable designs, Runge said. This is not just a one-dimensional problem.]]> State Attorneys General Warn Automakers About SUV Ads http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5623 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5623
Citing a press release from North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, the Dow Jones Newswires reported that Cooper and the other AGs issued letters asking the auto manufacturers to review their SUV ads in light of a multi-state agreement with Ford in which the automaker paid $51 million to settle claims by state attorneys general that the company's advertising failed to disclose the rollover risk involved with driving sport utility vehicles.

The AG's letters ask manufacturers "to comply with the spirit and terms of that agreement," Cooper said. The letter was sent to DaimlerChrysler, BMW, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Isuzu, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, and Volkswagen.

"The attorneys general are particularly worried about SUV advertisements that blur the handling distinction between SUVs and passenger cars, tout cargo volume without explaining safe weight limitations and exaggerate the vehicles' high-speed maneuvering capabilities," Cooper said. "We believe that the failure to disclose this material information, or to wait until after the sale to disclose it, constitutes a deceptive and unfair trade practice under most state consumer laws."

Specifically mentioned in the letter as misleading are ads that describe SUVs as "car like," Cooper said. The letters point to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that SUVs are three times more likely to roll over than passenger cars, the DJN said.]]> Crist, Others Attack SUV Ads http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5624 Thu, 24 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5624
Led by Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist, the states' top law enforcement officers sent letters to 16 carmakers requesting they review ads that depict the unsafe operation of SUVs.

The ads could be considered deceptive because they portray SUVs as having carlike handling and performance capabilities, Crist said. That could open the door to litigation.

The letters come in the wake of the hundreds of rollover accidents involving Ford Explorers with Firestone tires. More than 270 deaths and 800 injuries were reported nationally in rollover accidents.

'We're just saying, `Tone it down, bring it down before someone gets hurt on the highways,' '' said Brad Barbin, a lawyer in Crist's office. ``The advertising pushes people to the limits of their truck's performance capability.''

But some auto industry officials don't see the distinction between ads for SUVs and high-performance cars.

''Why are they singling out SUVs?'' said Jeremy Anwyl, president of Edmunds.com, the online vehicle information site based in Santa Monica, Calif. ``If you want to go after the car companies, just go after them for every vehicle. The portrayal of vehicles in relatively unsafe conditions goes back to day one.''

SUVs are three times more likely than passenger cars to roll over, Barbin responded. SUVs are taller and narrower, giving them a higher center of gravity.

''The higher center of gravity does not allow them to handle high-speed turns or emergency maneuvers,'' Barbin said. ``What we're trying to do is get people to slow down on the highways because trucks can't make those kinds of turns.''

The attorneys general want the 16 carmakers to ''comply with the spirit'' of a settlement all 50 states reached with Ford Motor Co. in December. Ford agreed to pay $51.5 million to settle allegations that its advertising exaggerated the safe loading capacity and maneuverability of its SUVs.

Ford agreed to include in its ads the disclaimer: ``Professional driver. Closed course. Do not attempt.''

The settlement stemmed from rollover accidents involving the Ford Explorer and Firestone tires. Separately, Bridgestone/Firestone also paid $51.5 million to settle claims relating to the advertising of its tires.

Florida received about $1.6 million from the Ford settlement. Barbin was the lead lawyer in the investigation.

The states will use $30 million from the Ford settlement to fund a nationwide consumer education campaign, beginning this fall, on SUV safety.

Carmakers' ads ''may encourage unsafe driving habits on the nation's highways,'' Crist said in a statement. He was unavailable for comment.

Without naming any specific carmaker, Barbin cited an ad featuring a professional driver maneuvering an SUV around logs spilling off an 18-wheeler and a boulder that tumbled down a mountainside.

Among the manufacturers receiving the attorney generals' letter were DaimlerChrysler, General Motors, Honda, Mitsubishi, Nissan and Toyota.

'From General Motors' perspective, we appreciate the concern of the attorneys general but, if anything, we have been more conservative in our advertising than some of our competitors,'' said Jay Cooney, a GM spokesman. ``We do believe it's very important that people understand that trucks do not behave in the same way as cars.''

DaimlerChrysler, which makes Dodge and Jeep SUVs, didn't have a response to the letter. But spokeswoman Ann Smith said the carmaker carries out stringent reviews of its ads with safety experts.

The Federal Trade Commission has never taken any action against carmakers over SUVads, an agency spokesman said.

Manufacturers are required to post warning labels within sight of the driver about their vehicle's rollover propensity, said Tim Hurd, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The attorney generals' letter comes about three years too late, according to Art Spinella of Bandon, Ore.-based CNW Marketing Research, an independent market research firm that follows the automotive industry. That's because SUVs built on a passenger car-based platform are growing in popularity.

Last year, about 3.4 million truck-based SUVs were sold, an increase of 2.9 percent from 2001.

By comparison, 681,000 car-based SUVs were sold last year up 53 percent from the prior year, Spinella said.

''Of the people who buy a car-based sport utility, 73 percent of them believe it's based on a truck,'' Spinella said. ``Of those who buy a truck-based sport utility, 91 percent know that it's based on a truck.'']]> Kids at Greatest Risk in SUV Rollovers http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8739 Fri, 04 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8739
But the overall risk of death for children during rollovers is not higher for those riding in SUVs compared with those riding in cars, says an American study in the March issue of Injury Prevention .

Researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center examined U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data on children younger than 16 who were passengers in motor vehicle crashes in the United States between 1993 and 1998.

They found one of every 10 children in crashes during that time was involved in a rollover crash. The risk of death is 80 percent greater and the risk of injury more than doubles for children involved in rollover crashes compared to other types of crashes.

The risk of being in a rollover crash was 11 times greater for children riding in SUVs compared with children riding in passenger cars. The study found 60 percent of children involved in rollover crashes were riding in SUVs. In comparison, 4.4 percent of children involved in non-rollover crashes were riding in cars.

"The tendency of SUVs to be involved in rollover crashes has been the subject of recent attention. While the risk of death from being involved in a rollover is greater in an SUV, this may be outweighed by the lower risk of death due to riding in a heavier vehicle in other kinds of crashes," principal investigator Dr. Frederick Rivara, a University of Washington professor of pediatrics, says in a news release.

"More research is needed on the question of whether SUVs are generally safer or less safe than other vehicles on the road," Rivara adds. ]]> New Call For Chrysler To Recall Seat Belts http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5096 Fri, 14 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5096
The demand from consumer watchdog Public Citizen, which was a driving force behind the recall of millions of defective Firestone tires in 2000 and 2001, came as another lawsuit was filed in Texas over claims the third generation or "Gen3" model belt buckle in Chrysler vehicles is defective.

Consumer groups and lawyers claim that belt failures are linked to 14 deaths and 19 serious injuries. They say the latch button can be accidentally activated because it sits a half-inch higher than the rest of the buckle assembly.

The latest legal case against Chrysler's parent, DaimlerChrysler AG, alleges that seat belts popped open during a rollover crash in Texas last December that killed two women and injured three children riding in a minivan.

"Tragically, this tends to happen when vehicles are involved in sudden stops, turns, collisions or rollovers exactly when drivers need their seat belts the most," said Public Citizen's Tom Smith.

"GEN3" SEAT BELTS

Public Citizen joined another prominent consumer group, the Center for Auto Safety in Washington, in calling for a recall of "Gen3" belts installed across Chrysler's product line since 1994. Vehicles include the Dakota pickup, the Durango SUV and minivans.

The Center for Auto Safety urged Chrysler to recall the "Gen3" and replace them with its next-generation buckle.

More than 140 consumer complaints about unlatchings have been gathered by consumer groups and lawyers in cases against the "Gen3" belt.

But Chrysler could not immediately confirm that it had received any consumer complaints and said it does not plan to issue a recall.

"It's been proven to be a very safe seat belt. In the few (legal) claims we have seen, all the evidence has shown that people were not wearing the seat belts at the time of the accidents," Chrysler spokeswoman Ann Smith said.

There have been less than a dozen lawsuits against Chrysler since 1998 alleging seat belt failure. It is appealing one Texas jury verdict in 2000 and has settled two other cases, according to a lawyer involved in several of those lawsuits. Chrysler said two other class action lawsuits had been dismissed.

The government agency responsible for auto safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is not investigating Gen3 belts and said no formal petitions for action had been filed.

The government investigated the "Gen3's" predecessor in the late 1990s before a recall was initiated against that product.]]> McCain to Ask Top Regulator To Testify On SUV Standards http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4471 Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4471
Since questioning the safety of sport-utility vehicles in a Jan. 14 speech in Dearborn, Mich., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration chief Jeffrey Runge has kept a low profile. The Bush administration has sought to downplay his comments, saying they didn't amount to a blanket indictment of SUVs.

The planned hearing which a McCain aide said would be held sometime in February threatens to give critics of SUVs a new platform for attacking the vehicles, despite the surge in those vehicles' popularity in the U.S. during the past decade. The Arizona Republican has clashed with auto makers before over fuel-economy standards and safety regulations, and environmental and religious groups are already blasting large SUVs because they consume more fuel than minivans or cars.

But the most serious challenge is coming from Dr. Runge, who warned in his speech that his agency could require safety improvements if auto makers don't proceed with improvements more quickly. An aide to Dr. Runge, a former emergency-room physician, said Tuesday night that the administrator is prepared to testify before Sen. McCain's panel if asked.

A spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a Washington-based industry group, said her organization views the planned hearing as a chance for Dr. Runge to "clarify" his views on sport-utility vehicles.

In his Dearborn speech, Dr. Runge cited federal data showing that an SUV occupant in 2001 was three times as likely to die as a result of a rollover as an occupant of a passenger car. He also said his agency is considering performance standards that would prod makers to install more safety technology in vehicles, such as head-protecting airbags.

Auto makers say Dr. Runge's comments obscured federal data showing that a high number of rollover deaths involve people not wearing seat belts. Other industry officials remain upset over remarks Dr. Runge made to reporters following the speech, in which he suggested he wouldn't allow his children to drive any vehicle that gets a low score in the government's ratings system for assessing the propensity of vehicles to roll over. Auto makers and some safety advocates have criticized that system which is based on a mathematical formula that involves the height of a vehicle's center of gravity as misleading, and the agency is at work on a new ratings system.

Any move by the Bush administration to impose new regulations on sport-utility vehicles is fraught with political overtones; Michigan is traditionally a swing state in presidential contests, and auto makers have relied on SUVs to fatten their profits. Mr. Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, is also a former lobbyist for General Motors Corp.]]> Teacher Awarded $1.7 Million After Losing Arm In SUV Rollover http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4417 Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4417
A Broward Circuit Court jury deliberated four days before initially awarding $3.4 million to Andrea Alvarez. But the amount was reduced because jurors found Alvarez, of Boynton Beach, 49 percent at fault in the 1997 crash. Nissan was assigned 51 percent of the blame.

Alvarez's attorney, Robert Kelley, said he would appeal and seek the entire award. Nissan attorneys said they were considering an appeal.

"We're satisfied with the jury's verdict," Kelley said. "This vehicle should never have rolled over like it did."

Kelley said Alvarez, 35, was driving her 1993 Nissan Pathfinder home from work on Oct. 17, 1997, when she drifted off the Sawgrass Expressway.

According to the testimony at trial, Alvarez was able to steer the vehicle back onto the road safely, but the Pathfinder abruptly flipped onto its driver's side in the middle of the expressway, and Alvarez's arm was pinned below the vehicle as it ground to a halt. She lost her arm just above the elbow.

Kelley said the evidence at trial showed that although the SUV was never recalled, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported the 1993 Pathfinder as having the highest fatality rate in its class.

Bennett Traub, an attorney for Nissan in California, said the company was sympathetic about Alvarez's injury but disappointed with the verdict.

"The evidence showed Ms. Alvarez lost control of her vehicle, drove off the road into the median and made a violent steering maneuver in an effort to regain the highway, causing the vehicle to roll over," he said. "Any vehicle would have rolled under these circumstances. We believe there's nothing wrong with the design of the Pathfinder."

Alvarez is a teacher at Manatee Elementary School west of Boynton Beach. She has been with the Palm Beach County School District since 2001.]]> Speaking Out On The Perils of SUVs http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4416 Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4416
No federal regulator ever has delivered such a tough message about SUV safety, experts say, and it was doubly surprising given that SUVs account for virtually all of the profits earned by the domestic auto industry.

But Runge doesn't fit the mold of most federal bureaucrats.

Almost his entire career has been spent as an emergency room physician and not as a government employee or a political operative. At the North Carolina hospital where he worked, he treated 30,000 people, a third of them injured in automobile accidents.

With that experience, Runge's warning about SUVs has added credibility. Although SUVs accounted for just 3% of all highway crashes in 2001, they were responsible for about 30% of vehicle fatalities.

The reason is simple: The top-heavy vehicles easily roll over if an evasive maneuver is attempted or if the vehicles begin to spin. During a rollover, occupants can be thrown out the windows or killed when the roof collapses. And SUVs' heavy weight and high profile are deadly to occupants of the vehicles they hit.

The American public has come to think of SUVs as safe, something that makes them king of the road. But as statistics show, they not only are unsafe for occupants but also represent a high risk for drivers who must share the road with the behemoths.

Not long after Runge made the remarks, officials at NHTSA were downplaying them, saying they represent no change in the position of the agency and that Runge had made the same points before in a private meeting last year with reporters.

But safety experts across the country dismissed that as revisionist history.

"To me, the landmark feature of the speech was his assertion that SUVs are not safe enough to buy," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. "Rollovers are the most lethal crash you can have."

Rosemary Shahan, executive director of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, worried that if Runge continued to speak out, the Bush administration would get rid of him.

"I was astounded he would be so honest," Shahan said. "It was almost like somebody gave him truth serum."

The auto industry clearly was stunned by the speech. General Motors Corp., the world's largest auto manufacturer, lambasted Runge's remarks.

"According to NHTSA's own factual data, SUVs are among the safest vehicles on the road and have contributed to the dramatic decline in the nation's fatality rate over the last decade," GM said. "To assert otherwise is not only contrary to the facts gathered by his own agency over the last decade but unfair to the thousands of men and women who have spent their professional lives making vehicles safer."

Runge's interpretation of the NHTSA data is clearly different. He noted that the fatality rate per 100,000 registered SUVs is three times higher than for passenger cars. How did consumers get the idea that SUV are safe vehicles?

About 10,000 people annually are killed in rollover accidents, prompting calls for NHTSA to take action. Runge stopped short of that, however, calling instead for a continued industry effort to develop and offer head-protection air bags. Such air bags help keep occupants inside the vehicles during a crash. But they seldom prevent injuries when roofs collapse, according to Ditlow.

Although Runge did not mention it, improving roof strength would help prevent half the deaths from rollover accidents, Ditlow said.

Carmakers could strengthen roofs for as little as $25 to $50 per vehicle, mainly by adding metal reinforcements in pillars and in cross structures, Ditlow said. Head-protection air bags, however, cost about $200 per vehicle.

"When he talks about head-restraint air bags, he is just showing his inexperience," Ditlow said.

Nonetheless, Runge's remarks could bring far-reaching benefits, Ditlow said.

"Eighty percent of people think SUVs look cool, but if they think they are death traps, they won't want them," he said.

As for the risks SUVs pose to other vehicles, Runge noted in his speech that there are 26 deaths in passenger cars for every one in an SUV in cases in which the cars are broadsided by the larger vehicles. That problem can be solved only by making SUVs lighter, lower and softer. Of course, doing all that to an SUV would make it more like a station wagon or the modern-day equivalent, a crossover vehicle. In his speech, Runge praised the industry's innovative work on crossover vehicles.

Why did Runge make the speech?

"We are all wondering what the turnaround was all about," said Sally Greenberg, senior product safety counsel at Consumers Union. "Runge is a new and very independent voice at NHTSA. We applaud his openness."]]> Lawsuits Give Ford Publicity Problem http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4418 Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4418
The cases challenge product and engineering decisions made more than a decade ago and question the company's honesty.

On Wednesday, Ford asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of a $290 million punitive damage award from a California jury that said the automaker knew the roof of the Bronco sport-utility vehicle couldn't properly withstand a rollover. The case stemmed from a 1993 accident in which three people died. Ford says the Bronco's roof met federal regulations and engineering standards.

Also on Wednesday, a hearing was held in a Cleveland federal court on a request for class-action status in a case involving Crown Victoria police cars. Plaintiffs say thousands of departments bought cars with a design defect, making them unsafe for police work.

On Tuesday, a Chicago federal judge fined Ford for withholding tests plaintiff lawyers say showed its Econoline 15-passenger van was unsafe. Ford says it didn't conceal tests, but that tests sought by plaintiffs weren't relevant.

Every car company is subjected to a steady diet of lawsuits, but Ford has been a well-publicized target since August 2000, when millions of Firestone tires, most on Ford Explorers, were recalled. That's led to hundreds of lawsuits from accidents in which tires lost tread and Explorers rolled over.

The cases continue even though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it found no design defect in the Explorer.

NHTSA also said it found no design defect in the Crown Victoria police car. Plaintiff lawyers say placement of the gas tank makes the car susceptible to fire if hit from behind at high speed. At least 13 officers have died in car fires.

NHTSA has issued warnings about the stability of the van. From 1990 to 2001, 647 people were killed in Econoline rollovers.

Ford spokesman Jon Harmon said the Crown Victoria and Econoline cases are difficult because the automaker dominates both niche categories and because police cars are subjected to dangerous duty, and the vans can be loaded with up to15 people who, Ford says, might not be wearing seatbelts.

The three cases in court this week could cost Ford in excess of $500 million this year, including damage awards and changes Ford is making to the police cars. But it's hard to determine how costly the steady stream of publicity is to Ford's reputation.

Corporate image consultant Eric Dezenhall says it might not matter much. "Exxon's business didn't suffer after Valdez, and the Explorer was still the best-selling SUV last year after two years of bad press."]]> SUV Rollovers Get Red Flag From Federal Safety Board http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4318 Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4318
Jeffrey Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said in a speech this week at an industry conference that SUV owners aren't as safe as they think because of rollover hazards. Runge, whose agency can mandate the addition of safety equipment or changes in vehicle design, told the Wall Street Journal that new rules to prevent rollovers were among his top priorities and that NHTSA is considering new performance standards to reduce rollover risks.

Rollovers accounted for less than 3 percent of U.S. motor- vehicle accidents but a third of fatalities in 2001, Runge said. An SUV occupant was three times more likely to die in a rollover accident than a passenger-car occupant. In 2001, 8,400 people died in vehicle rollovers, a 22 percent increase.

However, an automakers' spokesman said Runge was selective in the statistics he cited.

"Sports cars are 20 times more likely to roll than SUVs because they're driven more aggressively," said Eron Shosteck of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, "which gets us back to driver behavior. Eighty percent of the rollover fatalities were not wearing their safety belts.

"SUVs do extremely well in front and side-impact accidents, which are 97.5 percent of all vehicle accidents," he added.

Many people buy SUVs because they feel safer in the larger vehicles, said George Peterson of AutoPacific Inc., an automobile marketing consulting firm in Tustin.

"They've always bought large vehicles because the perception is they're safer. In an accident (with a smaller car), you win," he said.

Safety was an important factor when Chuck Waite of Newport Beach bought a Ford Explorer for his son. Now he drives it. "But I'll never buy a small car again. I'm big and I like being up higher. SUVs are the only way to go."

Ford, which also owns Land Rover and Volvo with American headquarters in Irvine, already puts dual front and side airbags on its SUVs. Starting in 2002, Ford Explorers have offered side-impact curtain airbags, which offer greater rollover protection, as an option, said Ford spokeswoman Francine Romine. Much of Ford's safety research is being done at Volvo, she added.

Volvo spokesman Roger Ormisher in Irvine said, "When Ford bought Volvo, it made us the center for excellence in safety. Our XC 90 (Volvo's first SUV) has a roll-stability control system, using (gyroscopes) to avoid accidents, and curtain airbags are standard equipment on all three models." The automakers aren't the only companies working on the rollover-prevention issue. Iteris in Anaheim developed, with DaimlerChrysler, a lane-change detector that warns if a car is drifting. "Ninety percent of rollovers are caused by unplanned lane changes for which the driver then overcompensates," said Iteris spokeswoman Sheri Gold. "It's already used on Mercedes and heavy trucks, and we just announced last week that it's available on passenger cars as early as 2004." But improvements take time to incorporate into auto design, said Barbara Nocera of Irvine-based Mazda. "Manufacturers are phasing in safety features as the technology becomes available. As long as consumers want it, the companies will respond."

Ford's Romine agreed. "We see this as an industry issue. Does it need to be mandated? We think we can do this without government intervention."

However, consumers don't always demand safety features. The federal government forced automakers to install safety belts in cars and trucks, but many drivers and passengers don't wear them, even though they would pay a fine if caught.

Isuzu Trooper owner Emily Benavides of Santa Ana thinks the NHTSA should mandate safety improvements. "If it's going to make them safer, I think it's worth it. The automakers are going to do as little as they have to, but government can go overboard sometimes, so I'd like to see a happy balance."]]> NHTSA Head Claims SUVs Are Unsafe http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4326 Thu, 16 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4326
In Atlanta, Mike Schoeffner agreed. "I feel safer in a brick home," he said. "I just feel safer in something that's sturdy."

And car dealers like Rob Buchman are happy to oblige them: "A bigger vehicle equates to safety."

But the head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jeffrey Runge, said Tuesday in a speech at an auto-industry conference in Detroit that some of the SUVs are so dangerous, he wouldn't buy one for his daughter even "if it was the last one on Earth."

These are strong words from an administration not known for getting all that tough on the auto industry. But when asked today if Runge would expand on his remarks, a spokesman said he would have nothing further to say.

But Runge said in his speech that SUV drivers are more vulnerable to roll-overs because of the vehicles' high center of gravity. "Unfortunately a lot of people who drive these vehicles want to drive them like cars," said Dale Jewett, a reporter for the publication Automotive News .

Robert Gottfred, who owns a body shop in Chicago, said, "We're seeing a lot more extensive and expensive damage on the SUVs for about the same mile-per-hour hit than in a car."

Gottfred said it's clear that the SUVs roll over -- and over, in many of these cases. "A lot of times they'll roll more than once and so you have impact from several different places."

And the most recent NHTSA statistics find that someone in an SUV is three times more likely to die in a rollover accident than someone in a car.

New Safety Measures Would Cost Auto Makers

Installing a side curtain and head protection air bags on SUVs would improve safety but that would mean re-engineering a lot of vehicles, which would be expensive.

"It would undoubtedly increase the price, yes," said Jewett. "Someone has to pay for the upgraded safety technology."

Runge's agency can force the industry to make changes, but the automakers are uniformly against government intervention.

General Motors, for example, said it would comply voluntarily but only if its competitors did, too.

Today, at the dealer level, Runge's words were hardly cause for concern. "I think people will listen to it and like a week later they'll forget what they heard and go back to their buying habits," said Buchman. Steve Ewing, president of Wade Ford in Atlanta, said his main business is sport utilities. "These headlines don't affect sales," he said.

More than 4 million SUVs were sold last year.]]> NHTSA: SUVs Not Safe Enough http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4282 Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4282
"The thing I don't understand is people, when they choose to buy a vehicle, they might go sit in it and say, 'Gee, I feel safe,'" said Dr. Jeffery Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, according to the Wall Street Journal. "Well, sorry, but you know gut instinct is great for a lot of stuff, but it's not very good for buying a safe automobile."

Runge, who served as an emergency room physician for 20-years before becoming head of the NHTSA, said SUV drivers are especially vulnerable to fatal rollovers because the vehicle's high center of gravity makes them more likely to tip during sudden maneuvers, the paper reported.

If automakers don't take steps to make SUVs safer, Runge warned that the government could step in to demand changes, according to the Journal.

Runge added that rollover accidents accounted for just 3 percent of all U.S. auto accidents in 2001, but caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities, and an SUV occupant was more than three times as likely to die as a result of a rollover than an occupant of a passenger car, the paper reported.

Separately, the NHTSA said Tuesday that it opened an investigation into 150,000 General Motors Corp. sport utility vehicles after 36 reports of engines stalling without warning.

The complaints involve 2002 GMC Envoys and 2002 Oldsmobile Bravadas, but the Chevrolet TrailBlazer, which shares the same mechanical parts, is not under investigation.

NHTSA said the reports allege the SUVs stalled at speeds up to 75 miles per hour, causing steering and braking to fail. In some cases the engines could not be restarted and the vehicles had to be towed.]]> White House Regulator Critical of SUV Safety http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4284 Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4284
Speaking at an auto industry conference, Jeffrey Runge, administrator of the National Highway Safety Administration, chided automakers for not making SUVs as safe as passenger cars.

He noted that the popular trucks are much more likely to roll over in a single-vehicle accident and called for more work on designs and technologies that will keep them from tipping.

Runge also said NHTSA will propose guidelines this year for side airbags, which are becoming more common, especially in SUVs.

Runge said consumers must research the safety performance of vehicles, especially SUVs. He urged SUV buyers to take time to learn how to drive them and how stability control features, more common on newer models, behave in real-world driving.

Not all SUVs are created equal, and I would urge people not to just take what salesmen have to tell them about safety features but to do their own research, he said.

As for himself, Runge said he wouldnt drive an SUV that scored fewer than three stars in NHTSAs five-star rollover rating.

More than 30 of the 2002 SUVs tested by the agency earned just one or two stars, including the top-selling SUV, Ford Explorer, and other popular models such as Chevrolet Tahoe, Toyota 4Runner, and Nissan Xterra.

Automakers dont like NHTSAs rollover ratings, which are based on wheel width and center of gravity.

NHTSAs current test doesnt factor in enhancements we make to suspensions, tire size and other handling features we put into our vehicles, General Motors spokesman Jim Schell said.]]> Auto Defect Inquiries, SUVs Criticized http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4291 Wed, 15 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4291
The driver lost control of the car, which slammed into a concrete bridge rail at 43 miles per hour, and suffered fatal head injuries despite wearing a seat belt. The driver's side air bag did not deploy, a National Highway Transportation Safety Agency spokeswoman said.

Ford sold more than 431,000 Taurus and Sable sedans last year.

NHTSA also has opened an inquiry into 150,000, 2002-model GMC Envoys and Oldsmobile Bravadas after receiving 36 reports of the sport-utility vehicles stalling without warning.

In some cases the engines would not re-start, causing steering and brake systems to fail.

NHTSA Administrator Dr. Jeffrey Runge, Tuesday told an auto industry conference in Dearborn, Mich., consumers should think twice before buying a sport-utility vehicle because their rollover rate is three times that of passenger cars.

"Large passenger cars and minivans are the safest way to move around large numbers of people," Runge, a former emergency room physician in North Carolina, told the Automotive News World Congress.

Runge said SUVs are more rollover-prone because of their higher center of gravity. Department of Transportation statistics said 9,882 people were killed in rollover crashes on U.S. roads in 2000 8,146 in single-vehicle crashes. Fifty-one percent of all SUV fatalities were linked to rollovers compared to only 19 percent of car deaths.

Nearly a third of the 95 SUVs rated for rollover resistance by NHTSA in 2002 including the Ford Explorer, Toyota 4Runner, Nissan Xterra and Chevrolet Tahoe earned just two-stars or fewer on five-star scale.

"I wouldn't buy my kid a two-star rollover vehicle if it was the last one on earth," Runge said. "My daughter drives a sedan. I drive a large sedan that is over 3,000 pounds. And my wife drives a station wagon."

NHTSA plans to begin a dynamic rollover crash test later this year that will measure track width, electronic stability control, choice of tires, suspension and brakes of a vehicle. The agency's 2001 rollover ratings were based on a mathematical formula using a stationary vehicle's center of gravity and tire track width to determine its propensity to tip over. In the new test, vehicles will be driven on a track to simulate real-world driving conditions.

NHTSA also is expected to propose guidelines for side curtain air bags this year.
]]> Regulator Criticizes SUVs On Safety Front http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4281 Tue, 14 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4281
Speaking at an auto industry conference, Jeffrey Runge, administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, chided automakers for not making SUVs as safe as passenger cars.

He noted that the popular trucks are much more likely to roll over in a single-vehicle accident and called for more work on designs and technologies that will keep them from tipping.

Runge also said NHTSA will propose guidelines this year for side air bags, which are becoming more common, especially in SUVs.

The comments represent his most direct criticism of the auto industry since taking over the agency in August 2001.

Most of his rare public comments have focused on increasing safety belt usage and decreasing drunken driving.

Runge said consumers must research the safety performance of vehicles, especially SUVs. He urged SUV buyers to take time to learn how to drive them and how stability control features, more common on newer models, behave in real-world driving.

"Not all SUVs are created equal, and I would urge people not to just take what salesmen have to tell them about safety features, but to do their own research," he said.

As for himself, Runge said he wouldn't drive an SUV that scored fewer than three stars in NHTSA's five-star rollover rating.

More than 30, or about one-third, of the 2002 SUVs tested by the agency earned just one or two stars, including the top-selling SUV, Ford Explorer, and other popular models such as Chevrolet Tahoe, Toyota 4Runner, Nissan Xterra and Mitsubishi Montero.

Automakers don't like NHTSA's rollover ratings, derived from a mathematical equation based on wheel width and center of gravity.

"We don't agree that the current static stability method is a good one," Ford spokeswoman Sara Tatchio said.

"It doesn't take into consideration stability control technology that greatly affects driving performance."

"NHTSA's current test doesn't factor in enhancements we make to suspensions, tire size and other handling features we put into our vehicles," General Motors spokesman Jim Schell said.

NHTSA is developing a test for rollover tendency based on driving maneuvers done on a track. A final standard for that test is expected this year. Meanwhile, the current rating method "accurately predicts rollover behavior of SUVs in real-world driving," NHTSA spokesman Tim Hurd said.

SUVs have been targeted increasingly by those who dislike their size and gas guzzling, including some religious groups and environmentalists. They have been the subject of negative advertising campaigns and vandalism.]]> Big Vehicles Draw Big Criticism http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4280 Mon, 13 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4280
"I've got two [sport utility vehicles] now, and I'm going to have three in my family soon," the 61-year-old Boeing retiree said outside the Christiana Mall, near a lot where about half the vehicles parked were either SUVs or minivans. "It's going to be a Ford Expedition," he said, referring to one of the largest SUVs on the market. "I've worked hard all my life, and no one's going to tell me what I can drive."

But several national organizations have been trying to do just that recently.

The Detroit Project, a campaign of the nonprofit Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars, dedicated to decreasing the country's reliance on foreign oil, is running two 30-second commercials in major cities across the country.

One ad shows people talking about their SUVs, and says, in part, "I helped hijack an airplane. I helped blow up a nightclub. So what if it gets 11 miles to the gallon. I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country. It makes me feel safe. I helped our enemies develop weapons of mass destruction. What if I need to go off-road? Everyone has one."

The commercials will run in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, D.C., through Thursday at a total cost of more than $200,000. The funds were raised through donations.

The ads are only the latest in a growing momentum of anti-SUV activity. Recently, an alliance of religious groups began a "What Would Jesus Drive?" campaign, which urged that "SUVs should be purchased only by those who truly need them, such as individuals in rural areas and those genuinely needing four-wheel drive."

And there have been reports that SUVs are not any safer - and may be more dangerous - than cars, especially in rollover accidents.

But those commercials, campaigns and reports will not prevent Bev Breeding from buying an even bigger Lexus SUV next year - bigger than the blue 2000 RX 300 she currently owns.

"They can say whatever they want to say," Breeding said. "As long as they don't do anything to me, I don't care."

Breeding, 43, who lives in Chadds Ford, Pa., but owns a seal-coating business in Wilmington, said she plans to buy another Lexus SUV soon because the company recently came out with an "intermediate-sized" vehicle.

"I have three kids," she said, when asked about her desire for the vehicle. "And you can see how easy it is to lift up the back and throw things in."

While The Detroit Project says that its call for Americans to give up its SUVs is a "moral imperative," automobile industry officials have characterized the project and its organization as "fringe elements." The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a business lobby that supports limited government, labeled the ads "elitist nonsense."

No matter who says what, the ads fly in the face of SUV devotees who are driving up the sales of bigger vehicles.

Jared Kolb, a sales associate with Newark Chrysler Jeep, said customers who purchase SUVs don't require a sales pitch.

"They come in here knowing what they want," he said. "All we do is try to steer them in a direction to buy our SUV, as opposed to a Ford Explorer or a Honda Passport."

About five years ago, Kolb said, the big thing was minivans. Now, it's SUVs and four-wheel drive vehicles.

"We sell twice as many Jeeps as we do cars," Kolb said, "and that's market-driven."

Sport utility vehicle sales rose 6 percent last year and account for a quarter of all new cars sold, according to Autodata Corp., a New Jersey-based research firm that charts the sales of motor vehicles.

Don Deal, a Newark architect who drives a red 1999 Ford Sport Explorer, said he loves using his SUV to travel to construction sites, to load feed for his horse, or to drive around his two children.

"I see better in the car. I'm up high and feel safer," he said. "And I like the way it looks." ]]> SUV Rollover Deaths Climbing http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8738 Tue, 17 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8738
The abrupt over-correction causes the Honda sport utility vehicle to tip at a speed of just 45 miles per hour.

On an actual highway it would have resulted in a rollover accident and possibly a fatality.

Rollover crashes kill more than 10,000 people each year across America. And, as CBS News Correspondent Bob Orr reports, rollover deaths are climbing as more people trade in their cars for high-riding, less stable pickup trucks and SUVs.

"It's the fastest growing form of fatalities in motor vehicles today," says Clarence Ditlow, of the Center for Auto Safety. "And it's because we have sport utility vehicles that handle differently and we need a real world test that distinguishes how they do in the real world."

That's precisely what's happening at the Vehicle Research and Test Center in Ohio. CBS News got a rare look at federal regulators developing a test that will ultimately be used to compare and rate the stability of all vehicles.

Currently cars and SUVs are rated for rollover risks based on mathematical calculations. Narrow vehicles that sit high off the ground are rated more likely to roll. But these tests may ultimately prove to be more precise by measuring how cars actually perform in real-driving maneuvers.

"We're all watching this very closely to see how these vehicles will perform in these motion tests," says Jeff Runge, who heads the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

He says the tests will not trigger new regulations. But, publicizing rollover ratings will pressure car makers to improve stability.

"If they make vehicles that are prone to roll over, my hope is that people will not buy them, and they won't be able to sell them, and they'll have to make changes," he says. "This is the basic market forces at work."

Back at the testing center, Riley Garrott, of the NHTSA, continues his tests, looking for a threshold where SUVs become unstable.

The testing is expensive and painstakingly tedious.

And it could be model year 2005 before consumers have the real-world rollover ratings.

"The public needs the numbers because more people are being killed, we're getting more vehicles out there on the road with higher rollover characteristics, and we don't know which are the good performers and which are the bad performers," says Ditlow.

Regulators admit that the real world testing is overdue, but say automakers don't have to wait to make safety changes. And people can greatly improve their chances of surviving a rollover by simply buckling their seatbelts. ]]> Safety Agency Posts More Rollover Ratings http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4287 Mon, 02 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4287
According to NHTSA, among the most recently tested vehicles, the Acura MDX rated better than average in rollover risk in its tests. It got a four-star rating, which means it has a rollover risk of 10% to 20%.

Three-star ratings were earned by the Chevrolet Tracker and Trailblazer, GMC Envoy, Olds Bravada, Suzuki Vitara and the Toyota RAV-4. A three-star rating implies a rollover risk of 20% to 30%, according to NHTSA.

The Jeep Liberty received a two-star rating, the worst rating among the SUVs tested and indicating the vehicle has a 30% to 40% risk of rollover in a single-vehicle accident. ]]> Explorer Owners Sue For Class Action http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4292 Thu, 25 Jul 2002 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4292
The suit filed Tuesday in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court seeks to become a class action for all owners and people in the state who leased 1991 through 2001 model Explorers.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Commission ruled the best-selling SUV was not defective after Bridgestone/Firestone charged two years ago that the vehicle's high center of gravity made it prone to rollover in sudden maneuvers.

Most of the rollover accidents involving Explorers riding on recalled Firestone Wilderness tires. More than 200 deaths and 800 injuries were linked to defective Firestone tires. Both companies have settled dozens of lawsuits and face hundreds more involving drivers and survivors of people who were killed or injured in rollovers, many caused by blowouts and tread separation.

The Explorer was redesigned for 2002, and the suit seeks to recoup the lost value of older second-generation model vehicles, which lawyers for the plaintiffs said are harder to resell.

Ford denied that 1991 model through 2002 model Explorers were unsafe and said the SUV had passed all federal and insurance industry performance tests.

"All of the data have shown that the Explorer is a safe vehicle," Ford spokeswoman Angela Coletti told the Cleveland Plain Dealer.]]> Pickups Get Low Government Rollover Ratings http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4286 Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4286
NHTSA says two stars mean a vehicle has a 30 to 40 percent risk of rolling over in a single-vehicle crash.

Two SUVs, the two-door version of the Ford Explorer and the Land Rover Discovery, also received two stars.
Automakers oppose the tests, the story said, because they rely only on a vehicle's dimensions and weight, and don't involve any actual driving.

]]> Jeep Liberty Rolled Over In Test http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4293 Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4293
DaimlerChrysler Corp., which debuted the new sport-utility vehicle in June, said the test was inappropriate for an SUV.

AutoWeek, published by Detroit-based Crain Communications Inc., said in Monday's edition an engineer was driving the rear-wheel-drive, 3.7-liter Jeep Liberty Sport at about 40 mph on Oct. 18 around eight traffic cones on a 490-foot slalom in a parking lot at California Speedway.

The Jeep was rounding the seventh cone when the Liberty's driver-side wheels lifted off the pavement. The vehicle rolled over twice on the driver side as it rounded the final cone, the magazine said.

The cones are placed 70 feet apart in the slalom, which is a test of maneuverability not rollover avoidance, and requires hard braking and hard steering.

"Our slalom was not designed to induce a rollover, or even test for one," said Natalie Neff, test editor in a story on the magazine's Web site, autoweek.com. "Its aim is to evaluate handling characteristics, especially in transitions. Typically, we find the limit when we hit a cone or spin out. We didn't set out to roll the Jeep."

AutoWeek said the Liberty was the first vehicle ever to rollover in nine years it has performed the test. DaimlerChrysler said it has not had any reports of Libertys rolling over and had found the vehicle safe in its own tests. AutoWeek said an accident investigator hired by Chrysler blamed the rollover on a combination of rough pavement and aggressive driving.

"The incident demonstrates yet again that SUVs handle differently than do cars at the limits," said AutoWeek executive editor Kevin Wilson. "It makes us nervous to see such SUVs driven as they typically are, like normal compact cars."

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration gave the Jeep Liberty two stars in its latest rollover resistance ratings, meaning it has a 30-to 40 percent chance of rolling in a single-car accident.

A rating of two or three stars is typical for an SUV in the government's ratings. The rollover ratings are based on a formula that uses the vehicle's center of gravity and the width of its track not on dynamic tests.

The minivan-based Pontiac Aztek 4x4 was the only SUV to earn four of a possible five stars from NHTSA.]]> Sport Utility SUV Rollover Injury Lawyer http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/suv_rollovers Mon, 26 Nov 2001 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/suv_rollovers SUV Rollovers The manufacturers of Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV) are under increasing criticism for not improving the safety of these popular vehicles. SUV rollover accidents accounted for just 3 percent of all U.S. auto accidents in 2001, but caused nearly a third of all vehicle-occupant fatalities, and an SUV occupant was more than three times as likely to die as a result of a rollover as an occupant of a passenger car.

Jeffery Runge, head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the top U.S. auto-safety regulator said sport/utility vehicles and pickup trucks aren't safe enough due to rollover risks and consumers should think twice about buying them. Runge added that fatalities in single vehicle rollovers increased 22.3 percent from 2000 to 2001 and now account for 8,400 fatalities. Runge, who served as an emergency room physician for 20-years before becoming head of the NHTSA, said SUV drivers are especially vulnerable to fatal rollovers because the vehicle's high center of gravity makes them more likely to tip during sudden maneuvers.

If automakers don't take steps to make SUVs safer, Runge warned that the government could step in to demand changes.

More than 30 of the 2002 SUVs tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration earned just one or two stars, including the top-selling SUV, Ford Explorer, and other popular models such as Chevrolet Tahoe, Toyota 4Runner, and Nissan Xterra.

If you or a loved have been injured in an SUV Rollover, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified personal injury attorney.]]>