http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/vehicle_crashworthiness Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:56:04 -0800 pixel-app en http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10092 Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10092
It is for this reason that manufacturers are turning their attention to “crash-avoidance” technology which is designed to enhance driver awareness, reaction, and response in critical situations. This includes computerized systems that avoid collisions, minimize impacts, sense changing road conditions, sound warnings, tighten seatbelts, enhance braking and steering, and improve handling. Even radar sensors are being incorporated into this technology.

Many of the newest systems integrate several features that then act together in dangerous situations thereby producing optimal driver response. This significantly improves the chances of survival for an average or even below average driver.

The potential “dark side” to all of this technology, however, can be found in the sophisticated data-collection or “black box” devices that are now routinely installed in about two-thirds of the new vehicles sold in the United States. Some 30 million vehicles already have these devices known officially as event data recorders.

Currently, these devices are designed to record and store information on such variables as speed, throttle position, braking, airbag deployment, and seat belt use. More elaborate black boxes are used by long-haul trucking companies to monitor the operation of their trucks in great detail.

There are a multitude of uses to which this information can be put. Some of them are very good and some, according to privacy experts, are very bad.

On the positive side, the information gathered may prove helpful in criminal prosecutions, to help convict bad drivers of speeding and drunk driving violations, and to exonerate those wrongly accused of certain offenses. As raw data, without identifying individual drivers, it can aid in improving traffic laws and automobile design and safety.

Many lawmakers and privacy advocates see a real danger that this information will be used in litigation or by insurance companies against drivers who were unaware it was being collected.  
They also fear that once the technology is in place, more and more information can be gathered with very little difficulty. This could include recording information from on-board navigation and cell phone systems. It could also lead to insurance companies structuring rates to penalize drivers who refuse to have one of the devices in their car.

To deal with these concerns, there are proposals requiring disclosure by manufacturers as to which vehicles have the devices and for the installation of cut-off switch that can be activated by the driver.
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9389 Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9389
There are no pictures of Ramon Gonzalezs deceased mother, 11- year-old Sandys first communion or of 10-year-old Monas birthday parties.

There are no family portraits hanging on the wall or framed snapshots arranged on the kitchen counter.

The family lost most of its photos and most of its 6,800-square-foot dream home when a fire thought to have started in their parked 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis spread from the garage across the roof.

Its a nightmare that the Gonzalez family shares with dozens of other Ford Motor Company vehicle owners who blame a speed control deactivation switch for spontaneously igniting. The couple is now suing Ford and the company that designed the switch to regain the damages they lost in the fire.

A blaring alarm roused Ramon and Sandra Gonzalez from their sleep around 12:30 a.m. on Oct. 29, 2002.

"We were confused," Sandra said. "We didnt know what it was."

They opened their bedroom door, and the steel door that closed off the garage, to find the garage full of fire. Four fire departments responded to douse the fire, but could not save the home, which Ramons construction company Nomar built.

Insurance adjusters later determined the family cars speed control deactivation switch was to blame the same switch lawyers say was involved in the companys January recall of 800,000 F-series vehicles. The familys car had not been running since about 7:30 p.m., when Sandra returned from buying groceries. The family received $208,000 about $170,000 less than the appraisal.

They spent more than a year trying to rebuild the home, which still lacks carpeting and fixtures.

The girls still sleep downstairs in what will become the family room as their father works to rebuild the upstairs. The case is set for trial in August in 139th state District Judge Juan Partidas court.

The Gonzalez story might not be an unfortunate freak occurrence.

One of their lawyers, represents five other Hidalgo County families suing Ford. His law firm is handling dozens of cases in which vehicles fires started from the speed control deactivation switch.

When a driver turns on the cruise control device that keeps the vehicle at a constant speed, the switch acts as a safety net, stopping the automobile if the brakes dont.

The switch remains electrically wired, even when the vehicle is off. Located in the engine next to flammable fluids, the switch can short circuit and catch the fluid on fire, the attorney said.

In January, Ford voluntarily issued a safety recall on 2000 model year Ford F-150s, Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators, and 2001 F-Series Supercrew trucks affecting nearly 800,000 vehicles. In 1999, the company recalled almost 300,000 vehicles for a faulty speed control deactivation switch, including the 1992 and 1993 Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Cars and Mercury Grand Marquis.

The Rio Grande Valley is a popular market for the companys vehicles. In 2004, Ford dealerships in the Rio Grande Valley sold 9,013 of the companys vehicles, said Chuck Cueva, general sales manager for Boggus Ford in McAllen.

The attorney said there are an estimated 17 million Ford vehicles manufactured before 2003 that have the same switch. He gave The Monitor a spreadsheet obtained from Ford indicating 18 vehicle makes contain the switch including some that have not been recalled.

Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said the switches in those vehicles are not the same as those included in the companys two recalls.

The company is working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate Ford vehicle fires allegedly caused by the deactivation switches, she said.

NHTSA opened an investigation the on 2000 F-series in November 2004, which is still on-going, despite the companys voluntary recall of those vehicles.

"We take any allegation of fire seriously. We have to look too at (each allegation) on a case-by-case basis," Kinley said. The investigations are sometimes difficult because the company can not always obtain access to the vehicle, she said.

She acknowledged that the switches might have been the origin of the fires in some cases, but said at this point in the investigation, the company has not found fires occurring anywhere near the same amount as in the recalled models.

"If we do see a similar pattern we will certainly take action if we draw a conclusions there is a link to the speed control deactivation," she said.

However, Kinley said in some of the companys investigations into fires started in vehicles not included in recalls, the fires that were thought to have started in the cruise control deactivation switch actually were ignited by other causes, such as arson or faulty repairs.

For example, Kinley said in one case Jolly represents, the companys investigation found that a fire in a 1998 F-150 was caused by improperly installed wiring.

The plantiffs lawyer disputes the companys investigation findings and said the case is set for trial in April.

Regardless whether Ford decides to issue further recalls, life at the Gonzalez home is on hold as they await the outcome of their trial to continue rebuilding what theyve lost.

In the meantime, the only moving object housed in their rebuilt garage is a seldom-used treadmill.

"We dont park our car in the garage anymore," Sandra said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8735 Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8735
The deal could cost the automaker $2.7 billion, the plaintiffs said. Ford attorney Richard Warmer disputed that figure but offered no specifics except to say that the settlement will have little effect on the automaker's financial position.

At least 11 deaths and 31 injuries have been blamed on stalling Ford vehicles that were equipped with the ignition device.

Ford has maintained that the devices and its vehicles are safe and admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.

Under the deal approved by a California judge, Ford will reimburse owners nationwide who paid or will pay to repair ignition systems that have failed, so long as the vehicle had less than 100,000 miles at the time of failure. Ford will also cover related costs, such as towing fees.

The settlement does not affect any of the wrongful-death and personal-injury lawsuits filed over the defect.

And it does not remove from the road an estimated 12 million Fords nationwide equipped with the ignition system, which was originally installed in 20 million cars and trucks between 1983 and 1995, including the popular Taurus, Mustang, Escort and Ranger.

The deal ends years of litigation, avoids a court-ordered recall and averts a trial expected to begin later this year that could have exposed Ford to billions of dollars in damages under California consumer law.

For the plaintiffs, "I think it's as good as they could have possibly gotten, short of a recall," said a lead attorney suing Ford.

The deal comes amid a series of setbacks for the automaker, including a drop-off in sales. Ford is already spending $3 billion to replace 13 million Firestone tires it blames for deadly rollover accidents involving the Ford Explorer.

Industry analysts said that whatever its final cost, the settlement is not good news for Ford.

"Unfortunately it's a hit to their balance sheet, which is Ford's last remaining strength," said David Littmann, chief economist at Comerica bank.

Ford stock was up 46 cents, or 2.9 percent, to close at $16.52 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Superior Court Judge Michael E. Ballachey, who said earlier that the automaker was living in an "Alice in Wonderland" dream by denying the ignition modules were defective, signed the settlement after weeks of closed-door negotiations.

"I thought this wasn't going to happen," Ballachey said.

The agreement came two months after The Associated Press reported on the many deaths and injuries blamed on the defect. The AP also obtained internal Ford memos that show the automaker had evidence its ignition design could make engines suddenly fail on the road.

Ballachey ruled that Ford knew as early as 1982 that the vehicles were prone to stalling, especially when engines grew hot, and that Ford failed to alert consumers and repeatedly deceived federal regulators.

The lawsuit challenged Ford's placement of the thick film ignition module, which regulates electric current to the spark plugs.

The module was mounted in 29 Ford models on the distributor near the engine block, where it was exposed to high temperatures. According to internal documents obtained by the AP, Ford had designed it this way to save up to $2 per vehicle and increase fuel economy.

One document indicates Ford knew the devices should not be exposed to temperatures above 257 degrees. Another indicates Ford warned its engineers that many engines ran at temperatures higher than this, raising the risk of "rapid catastrophic failure."

A former National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigator told the AP that Ford concealed this information from federal regulators, who were studying hundreds of complaints about Ford vehicles stalling. Michael B. Brownlee, who oversaw the defect cases, said the government might not have closed its four investigations if Ford had provided these and other key documents.

The government decided against a recall years before the memos became known. It cannot recall the vehicles now because the legal deadline has passed, legal experts said.

Ballachey ordered Ford last year to recall as many as 2 million vehicles in California but had no jurisdiction over vehicles in other states. The settlement ends this recall threat and expands the class to Ford vehicles nationwide.

Consumer groups backed the accord, but were frustrated nevertheless.

"If Ford were concerned about public safety, they would have recalled the vehicles," said Clarence Ditlow, who heads the Center for Automotive Safety.

Last week, Ford reported a third-quarter loss of $692 million. Standard & Poor's lowered its credit rating two notches after the automaker said it would cut its fourth-quarter dividend in half.

The federal government has blamed at least 271 deaths on Firestone tires whose tread peeled away. Bridgestone/Firestone Corp. insists the vehicle is partly to blame. Ford says the tire is the problem.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/vehicle_crashworthiness Fri, 26 Oct 2001 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/vehicle_crashworthiness Vehicle Crashworthiness Crashworthiness is the ability of the vehicle to prevent occupant injuries in the event of an accident. Crashworthiness involves the technical foundation of a vehicle. It is worth taking note that the cause of the accident is technically immaterial in crashworthiness cases even if the severity of the accident is a question.

Due to variables in data collection, testing, and human factors, consumer information on vehicle crashworthiness (the vehicle's ability to protect its occupants in a crash) is still in the development stage. Design issues such as size, weight, and integrity play a role in a vehicle's ability to protect crash-involved occupants from injury. Crash data displays which vehicle-related factors affect crashes and the types of crashes that cause the most deaths and injuries. Human factors such as age, belt use, and location within the vehicle also affect crash injury likelihood.

Crashworthiness is not the same as vehicle safety and the two topics must be differentiated. Vehicle crashworthiness depends on designed in features as well as equipment specifications which can be observed as design features. Vehicles either have these features or they don't regardless of its accident or even injury rates.

Crashworthiness features include air bags, seat belts, crumple zones, side impact protection, head rests and interior padding. These features may or may not be present in a particular vehicle and may or may not work even if present. All of these items have been available since the early 1970's, but many are still not found in vehicles produced in the 1990's. Crashworthiness features must be designed to curtail second collision (occupant into vehicle interior) forces and prevent ejection and reduce fire risk.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an auto accident and your vehicle failed in protecting you, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified attorney.]]>