Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

For a vehicle one to three years old during 2006, mini cars experienced 106 driver deaths per million registered vehicles compared with 69 driver deaths in larger cars. The designers of the Smart Car note that at its heart is a reenforced safety cell called the tridion safety cell surrounding the driver and passenger which is supposed to act as a protective shell, like a shell around a walnut. Smart Car further notes that a small size would enable it to avoid crashes all together. Smart USA President, Dave Schembri, notes that the car’s agility may be small, and could be even safer. I personally disagree with this assertion based upon my 30 years of experience dealing with subcompact crashes, motorcycle crashes and crashes of vehicles much larger than the Smart Car. Perhaps I am skeptical, but I find that these lesser priced vehicles are typically driven by younger, more inexperienced drivers, which is partially to blame for higher crash statistics.

The dictionary defines crash-worthiness as a noun relating to the resistance to the effects of collision resulting in serious injury. The Federal Government is under increasing pressure to impose tougher regulations on vehicle crash-worthiness and many experienced Trial Lawyers of America, specializing in defective automotive products, have lead the way to make auto design safer and more crash-worthy. Although The National Highway and Safety Administration has been looking into ways to test a rating system for vehicles, many lawyers, such as myself, who practice automotive product liability litigation, find that these regulations likely fall short of what is fully necessary to protect the unsuspecting public. These are minimum guidelines at best.

Current standards are really minimal guidelines and fail to accurately assess how vehicles will react to real world collisions. NTHSA sets forth minimal crash-worthiness standards and also forces car manufacturers to test vehicles and report whether they comply with their requirements. In theory, this should encourage buyers to buy safer vehicles, which in turn encourages manufacturers to surpass safety requirements. However, the big problem is that these are just minimal standards which have failed to keep up with the times.

It is important to remember that crash-worthiness is not the same as vehicle safety. Vehicle safety is determined by both crash-worthiness and accident avoidance features such as anti-lock brakes and wider tires. Crash-worthiness cases typically involve injuries that are sustained as a result of a defect in a vehicle. There are three types of product defects that can lead to an injury.

1. Manufacturing defects - injury occurs when there is a flaw in the manufacturing process. For example, failure to include an airbag when the design calls for it is a manufacturing defect.

2. Design defects - injury occurs when the vehicle is unsafe because of the manufacturer’s design. For example, a fuel tank is placed in a location which makes it likely to explode upon impact, which is a design defect.

3. Failure to warn - injury occurs when the manufacturers are aware of a dangerous aspect of the vehicle but fails to warn or provide adequate warning to the consumer.

Automobile manufacturers use models and experiments in their attempt to protect crash failures but in many cases, the crash-worthiness of a vehicle is determined retrospectively but analyzing crash outcomes and in fact, by the litigation process itself. In the event of serious car, truck or bus accident, Pennsylvania crashworthiness attorneys at the Philadelphia vehicle law firm of Reiff and Bily will assess post-collision evidence such as the deformation patterns in vehicle structure, injuries predicted by modeling, recent recalls and defect notices and have extensive experience working nationally with renowned experts, engineers and investigators who specialize in defective airbag injuries, SUV rollover, seat belt failure, tire failures, fuel tank failures, door latch failures, broken seatbacks, roof caving or collapse, glazing, and side impact accidents.

On April 3, 2008, results released by NHSA indicated that during the side tests, the driver door opening of the Smart Car was sited as a safety concern. Our office recently concluded a case. and has handled other similar cases, where occupants where flung or ejected from the vehicle due to a failure to be contained due to defective latching mechanisms and/or improper glazing of the windows using laminated glass. My own personal take on the situation is that I would rather take the money saved on fuel if, in fact, the Smart Car actually receives 40 miles per gallon, and purchase additional insurance by investing my savings in a stronger and seemingly more crash-worthy vehicle. Of course, this is just my personal opinion, based upon my experience for 30 years as a personal injury attorney developing a specialty in the area of crash-worthiness and unsafely designed motor vehicles.

Increasingly, as vehicles are designed for fuel efficiency, that means lighter, and in my mind, less crash-worthy vehicles. It is also important to note, as I often inform motorcycle operators, that no matter how defensively you drive, you are always at risk of being hit by an inattentive driver. I drive over 60 miles per day and observe that many people just frankly drive like “maniacs”. In Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell has gone on record stating that he is unable to drive a posted speed limit of 65 mph due to the flow of traffic. Even in the slow lane, Governor Rendell noted that he was forced to go above the speed limit because other drivers were driving so fast. We all know that we have to drive slowly and defensively for safety sake but please, I ask manufacturers to take note to be more mindful of human nature and design their vehicles accordingly and in a crash-worthy fashion.

If you or a loved one has suffered from an automobile accident in which the vehicle was not deemed crash-worthy, please contact the Pennsylvania personal injury and vehicle accident law firm of Reiff and Bily who will investigate and work on your claim on a contingent fee basis, charging a small percentage of the recovery. They will not get paid one cent unless there is a successful recovery. They have handled thousands of personal injury cases since 1979 and have recovered in excess of $150 million dollars from their opponents for physical injuries and emotional damages.