Defective Fatal Rollover
Crash Lawsuits, Defective Automobile Roof Lawsuits, Deadly
Defective SUV Rollover Crash Lawsuits, Defective SUV Rollover
Crash Lawsuits, and Fatal Roof Design Rollover Lawsuits
by Texas Fatal Rollover Crash Lawyer Jason S. Coomer
Many
different types of automobile defects can cause a fatal crash to
occur or a minor accident to become a catastrophic injury or
deadly accident including defective SUV design, defective SUV
rollover design, defective SUV roof safety design, defective SUV
tires, defective steering column design, and defective SUV child
restrain design. In the aftermath of a serious automobile crash
or deadly SUV rollover collision, it is extremely important to
investigate how the rollover crash occurred and if a vehicle
defect was the cause of the rollover crash or caused a minor
accident to become a catastrophic injury or deadly crash.
If you have lost
a loved one in a fatal rollover crash or have been seriously
injured by a defective SUV or other automobile with defective
brakes, defective roof design, defective accelerator, defective
rollover design, defective tires, or other defective
crashworthiness features, feel free to
submit an inquiry or
send an e-mail to autodesigndefect@texaslawyers.com.
Automobile Accident Crashworthiness
Safety Belt Lawsuits, Fatal Crash Rollover Lawsuits, Fatal SUV
Rollover Crash Crashworthiness Unsafe Roof Collapse Lawsuits and
Fatal Automobile Rollover Crash Crashworthiness Lawsuits (Automobile
Defective Crashworthiness Product Liability Lawsuits)
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards set
minimum performance requirements for those vehicle parts that
protect drivers and passengers from death or serious injury in
the event of a crash (air bags, safety belts, child restraints,
energy absorbing steering columns, motorcycle helmets). These
vehicle performance requirements, defective automobile
crashworthiness lawsuits, manufacturer safety policies, and the
investigation efforts of the The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are important
to identify unsafe vehicles with defective airbags, defective
seat belts, defective child restraints, defective roof design,
defective designs that cause vehicle fires, and defective
designs that cause vehicle rollovers.
Fatal Rollover Crash
Defective Design Lawsuits, Catastrophic Injury Defective Design
Rollover Lawsuits, Fatal Roof Collapse Defective Design
Lawsuits, Catastrophic Injury Defective Roof Design Lawsuits,
and Automobile Accident Collapsed Roof Lawsuits (Product
Liability Defective Design Roof Collapse Lawsuits)
Manufacturers have known for decades that
vehicles roll over in reasonably foreseeable accidents. With the
rise in popularity of SUVs and pick-up trucks, the number of
people who are susceptible to vehicles rolling over has
increased significantly over the last 20 years. However, in
light of the fact that more people are affected by rollovers,
most vehicle manufacturers have not increased the strength of
the roofs in their SUVs and pick-ups.
Roof crush, or “loss of occupant survival
space,” creates many problems for occupants in the vehicle.
First, it rapidly reduces the space in the vehicle for the
occupant. This will increase the risk that the occupant will
receive a spinal cord compression injury. Second, roof
deformation does not happen straight down but rather down and in
toward the occupant. This significantly increases the likelihood
that a properly belted occupant will be partially ejected out of
the vehicle during the roll sequence. Typically the force of the
roll coupled with the glass shattering out of the window, the
roof crushing down and inward and the seatbelt not properly
securing the occupant to the seat will result in the occupant
having his or her head and/or arm and shoulder out of the
vehicle during the roll. As will be discussed below, there are
other ways to keep an occupant in the vehicle during a roll but
a roof that stays in place during a roll reduces the risk of a
person being partially ejected or receiving a compression injury
even without the other safety measures.
The most common injuries associated with roof
crush are spinal cord compression injuries and death. Many
automobile manufacturers have taken the position, especially in
spinal cord compression injury cases, that the injury was caused
by the occupant “diving” into the roof. The term “diving” comes
from the analogy of swimming pool diving injuries to compression
injuries sustained in rollovers. With this defense, the
automobile manufacturers maintain the injury occurs before the
roof crushes in by the head moving toward the roof until it can
go no further and the weight of the occupant’s body moving
toward the head until there is such loading on the neck that a
spinal injury occurs. Vehicle manufactures allege through
testing and expert testimony that when a vehicle is inverted,
the forces of gravity and the roll sequence will lead to an
occupants head contacting the roof without any roof crush. They
allege that there is no alternative roof design that can stop
this from happening.
Partial ejections are also common in rollover
accidents because the roof crushes down and in toward the
occupant. When the roof crushes down and in, the force of the
roll causes the occupant’s head to get outside the plane of the
vehicle. In a partial ejection, it is common for an occupant to
hit his or her head against the ground or pavement or get it
caught between the car and ground during the roll. Vehicle
manufacturers often argue that no matter the strength of the
roof, a belted occupant can get their head out of the car during
a roll. But if you keep the roof from deforming more than 3
inches during a rollover, restrained and contained occupants
cannot get their heads out of the plane of the vehicle and
sustain a catastrophic injury. The most important series of
tests that address the causal relationship between occupant
injuries and roof deformation are Malibu I and Malibu II. These
were dolly rollover tests performed with Chevrolet Malibus (some
with production roofs and others with reinforced roofs that did
not deform during the rollovers). The vehicles were equipped
with Hybrid III test dummies (in Malibu I the dummies were
unrestrained and in Malibu II the dummies were properly belted).
Vehicle manufacturers use the Malibu tests to argue the roof
crush does not actually cause the injury.
The test data demonstrates, however, that
there is a causative relationship between the strength of the
roof and significant neck loading. Analysis of the Malibu
testing and other testing that has been performed by the
automotive industry and others is beyond the scope of this
paper, but it is important for anybody handling a roof crush
case to be well-versed in all of this testing. When analyzing a
roof crush case, it is important to analyze the extent of the
roof deformation. This will require measurements that can be
done by a trained attorney or investigator. Further, as
discussed above, the accident reconstruction will provide much
information that will allow an analysis of a roof crush case.
Trip speed, roll velocity, number of rolls, drop height and the
type of roll (barrel, end over end or football) are all needed
to analyze whether or not a safer alternative design existed
that would have kept the occupant compartment space preserved
during the roll. |