Philadelphia Injury Attorney Blog

Most vehicles on the road today are designed with gas tanks over the rear axle. Unfortunately, there are still many cars on the road that have the gas tank positioned behind the rear axle and below the rear bumper, therefore exposing occupants to an extraordinary risk of fire and explosion in a rear impact collision.

Many Ford vehicles were built with a “panther platform”. The Ford Motor Company has known for a long time that a number of police officers operating Crown Victoria police cars and operators of Ford Lincoln Towncars were sustaining serious burn injuries or being burned alive in these vehicles when the vehicle burst into flames in rear impact collisions.

Many Crown Victoria’s and Lincoln Continental’s manufactured by the Ford Motor Company were designed with the fuel tank located in a crush zone between the rear axle and the rear bumper.

A behind the axle fuel tank has a proportionally higher rate of rear impact fatalities from fuel fed fires than the risk incurred in other full sized vehicles where the tank is moved in front of the axle or in an otherwise protected area or shielded. From 1965 to 1972, Ford documented 428 rear impact collisions involving fuel fed fires in its vehicles using fuel tanks located behind the rear axle in which occupants suffered burn injuries or death involving a total of 394 deaths and 368 burn injuries. In at least three lawsuits, jury verdicts later affirmed on appeal revealed that Ford Motor Company acted with gross negligence in locating fuel tanks behind the rear axle without taking other needed precautions such as providing shields, bladders, or other devices needed to protect against fuel leakage.

Continue reading "Any Car or Vehicle with a Rear Mounted Gas Tank behind the Rear Axle and Below the Rear Bumper Exposes Occupants to Extraordinary Risks" »

A few weeks ago, I was asked to investigate a case involving the death of a beautiful 21-year-old girl who unfortunately may have been the victim of a perfect storm of unfortunate events with tragic consequences. The young woman had finished a day at work and was going to take care of her mother who had been confined to bed due to an illness when she was suddenly and violently rear-ended by an intoxicated driver. Her car exploded and was engulfed in flames. The vehicle involved was a full sized vehicle that many would assume is the safest on the road offering “tons” of protection. Many would assume that this full sized passenger automobile would provide the safest amount of protection for its drivers.

The vehicle was a front engine rear wheel drive vehicle and immediately behind the rear axle is a “vertical behind the axle” fuel tank with a deep well trunk positioned immediately behind the fuel tank. Most passenger vehicles made over the past 40 years have been designed with a rear “crush” zone to absorb forces of a rear impact collision accident, but this also means that a safety related component such as a fuel tank should not be located in the same rear crush zone behind the rear axle. The vehicle involved in this explosion had its fuel tank unsafely located within the rear crush zone.

While there no doubt exists a case of negligence against the offending driver who was intoxicated well beyond normal limits at the time of the crash, we believe that a product liability action exists as well against the manufacturer of this vehicle who had a long track record of such fiery explosions and possessed knowledge of the damages and defects of such a design. We intend to pursue a product liability action against the manufacturer of the vehicle for the gas tank explosion accident. Of course, we expect the automobile manufacturer will claim that they complied with industry standards in the design of a vehicle by equipping it with a vertical behind the axle fuel tank that met minimum safety guidelines, but the mere fact that a manufacturer adhered to relevant industry standards does not require judgment as a matter of law in a design defect case.

Our Philadelphia defective vehicle crash lawyers expect that the automobile manufacturer will aggressively defend their position and argue that the gas tank and placement of the tank complied with all applicable federal standards and that collision forces may be greater than what was foreseeable from a design standpoint. However, we understand that all automobile manufacturers have a non-delegable duty to design reasonably safe products and that manufacturers have a continued duty to warn consumers of hazards if the manufacturer knew or should have known of a hazard.