DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSES TOYOTA'S ACCELERATED APPEAL
Japanese auto manufacturer Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) filed an accelerated appeal, claiming the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over it due to Plaintiffs' alleged failure to properly serve TMC in accordance with the Hague Convention. Apparently recognizing that Texas law does not allow accelerated or interlocutory appeals where the only complaint is regarding the manner of service, TMC failed to timely file its brief and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on April 28, 2010. Click here to review the Judgement
DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS REJECTS TOYOTA'S MANDAMUS
After filing an unsuccessful accelerated appeal, Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC) sought mandamus relief from the Dallas Court of Appeals, claiming the trial court improperly refused to quash Plaintiffs' service of process on TMC. TMC claimed that Plaintiffs failed to properly serve it under the Hague Convention because Plaintiffs served the Texas Secretary of State as TMC's agent for service of process, and also served TMC directly via mail, as expressly permitted by Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention. After extensive briefing, the Dallas Court of Appeals summarily denied TMC's request for mandamus relief on May 25, 2010. Click here to review the Order
HAWAI'I FEDERAL COURT REJECTS FORD'S FEDERAL PREEMPTION DEFENSE
AND FINDS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE AGAINST FORD
On February 12, 2010, the United States District Court for the District of Hawai'i rejected Ford Motor Company's argument that any claim of a person injured or killed as a result of Ford's failure to equip a vehicle with a side impact airbag is preempted by federal law. (Click here to review the order.) On February 17, 2010, the Hawai'i federal court also denied Ford's motion claiming that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Ford was grossly negligent in its failure to properly design and equip the Ford Focus. (Click here to review the order.) Mark Durham was killed and his daughter was seriously injured when the Ford Focus he had rented on vacation in Hawai'i was struck on the driver's side by an SUV. The Focus, Ford's smallest car, was not equipped with a side impact airbag as standard equipment, even though Ford made side impact airbags standard on the Focus in Europe. The Brown Law firm brought suit against Ford and others claiming that the 2004 Ford Focus is defective and unreasonably dangerous in side impacts, particularly in ones where larger, heavier SUVs strike compact vehicles like the Focus. For more information please contact Lee Brown at 214/624-3400, lbrown@leebrownlaw.com.
SKIMMING THE SURFACE OF SAFETY
By Lee Brown and Amanda Morse
VIEW FULL ARTICLE
TOYOTA HID DEFECT IN VIOLATION OF LAW, U.S. saysDOT's LaHood proposes maximum $16.4 million penalty
Bloomberg News
Automotive News -- April 5, 2010 - 4:26 pm ET
UPDATED: 4/6/10 12:01 am ET
Photo credit: Reuters
LaHood: "We now have proof that Toyota failed to live
up to its legal obligations."
WASHINGTON (Bloomberg) -- Toyota Motor Corp. “knowingly hid a dangerous defect” that caused its vehicles to accelerate unexpectedly, the U.S. said, for the first time accusing the world's largest automaker of breaking the law.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood proposed a record civil penalty of $16.4 million, the most the government can impose. The fine recommended Monday escalates the confrontation between Toyota and LaHood, who initially praised the carmaker for its handling of recalls the company attributed to faulty accelerator pedals.
The fine was announced the week after Toyota reported U.S. sales rose 41 percent in March with the help of no-interest loans and discount leases, signaling the company may be recovering from recalls of about more than 8 million vehicles worldwide for flaws that may cause unintended acceleration..
The Transportation Department's action showed “safety matters and they're going to be tough as nails,” Joan Claybrook, a former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said in an interview. “That's very appropriate. They caught Toyota red-handed.”
The Japanese automaker waited at least four months before telling the agency that accelerator pedals might stick, LaHood said in a statement. Companies have five business days to report safety defects, the agency said.
`We now have proof'
“We now have proof that Toyota failed to live up to its legal obligations,” LaHood said in the statement. “Worse yet, they knowingly hid a dangerous defect for months from U.S. officials and did not take action to protect millions of drivers and their families.”
Toyota hadn't received NHTSA's letter on the fine, according to an e-mailed statement Monday from the company's North American sales unit.
“We have already taken a number of important steps to improve our communications with regulators and customers on safety-related matters as part of our strengthened overall commitment to quality assurance,” the company said, without saying whether it will exercise its right to dispute the fine.
LaHood has increasingly faulted Toyota's response since Jan. 28, when he said he had “no criticism” of the company and Toyota “did what they're supposed to do.”
Toyota in January recalled about 2.3 million U.S. cars and trucks for sticky accelerator pedals.
The penalty could “very possibly” be the first of multiple fines, said Claybrook, who is former president of Public Citizen, a Washington-based consumer advocacy group.
NHTSA cited documents obtained from Toyota in saying the company knew about the pedal defect since at least Sept. 29.
“NHTSA wants to make it clear that it was Toyota that was at fault and the agency did its best within the system,” said Alan Baum, an auto industry analyst at Baum & Associates in West Bloomfield, Michigan. He said Toyota probably won't contest the fine, “since they've essentially said they screwed up.”
‘Firepower to attorneys'
At a February congressional hearing, Toyota's U.S. sales chief Jim Lentz told lawmakers “we failed to promptly analyze and respond to information emerging from Europe and in the United States” about the sticky pedals.
Toyota has two weeks to accept or contest the proposed fine, Olivia Alair, a Transportation Department spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. If Toyota contests the penalty and a settlement isn't reached, “it would go to court,” she said.
“One of the biggest reasons to fight the fine would be to defend themselves from the language used by the Department of Transportation,” Ed Kim, an industry analyst for forecaster AutoPacific Inc. in Tustin, California, said in an interview. “That would seem to provide some firepower to attorneys that are suing the company.”
NHTSA's largest civil penalty was $1 million against General Motors in 2004 to settle charges that the company failed to conduct a timely recall involving windshield-wiper failures in about 581,000 vehicles.
‘Free Publicity'
“Both industry and government failed the test of putting the safety of America's drivers first” in the Toyota recalls, Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, one of three panels that has held hearings on Toyota actions, said in a statement Monday.
The proposed NHTSA fine may help consumers suing Toyota over sudden acceleration, said Houston attorney W. Mark Lanier, who has filed class-action and individual lawsuits related to the claims.
“Toyota is spending millions of dollars on public relations right now to sway consumers or a potential jury pool,” Lanier said in a phone interview. The fine “is free publicity that counters Toyota.” The penalty probably couldn't be introduced in court because “it's not like a criminal finding in that there was due process,” he said.
Toyota is facing at least 177 consumer and shareholder lawsuits seeking class-action status and at least 56 suits claiming personal injuries or deaths caused by sudden acceleration incidents, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Lanier has filed two personal injury cases and is considering filing about 100 others, including a dozen involving deaths, he said.
TOYOTA'S SAFETY ISSUES DRAW LAWYERS' FOCUS
By NORM ALSTER, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
With recalls, halted sales and new revelations almost daily, it may seem that things can't get any worse for Toyota (TM) . But they will.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are preparing a rash of lawsuits claiming drivers were killed or seriously injured in accidents triggered by sudden acceleration of Toyota vehicles.
The cases involve arguments challenging Toyota's response to unintended acceleration issues — as well as the adequacy of the fixes it has offered. The attorneys will also claim that the problems extend to popular vehicle models and model years not covered by Toyota's already-sweeping recalls.
Only a few cases have been filed so far. But leading auto trial lawyers tell IBD they are in the final stages of preparing cases they will soon take to court.
"Toyota's lack of engineering discipline and rush to become the world's largest vehicle manufacturer will end up costing it billions of dollars in sales, recalls and lawsuits," said E. Todd Tracy, a Dallas attorney with a long history in auto liability cases.
Each case will be different, of course, but several attorneys will argue that Toyota has lagged in addressing the issue of sudden unintended acceleration. And they are skeptical that the automaker's recent fix — which involves adding a part to the gas pedal to prevent sticking — solves the problem.
"This is a Band-Aid on a large hemorrhage," said Tracy.
This new legal front will complicate the challenge for the hobbled U.S. auto market kingpin as it wrestles with safety issues and tries to restore its tarnished brand.
A hint to the legal strategy comes from Tracy.
"Toyota has known about these problems since 1999," he claimed. He is looking at three potential cases right now. Each involves either death or severe injury. He says he is "getting ready to file" his first suit, probably within two weeks.
Don Slavik, an attorney with the Milwaukee firm of Habush, Habush & Rottier, has already filed a suit in San Luis Obispo County, Calif. The suit claims Anne Ezal died when the 2006 Camry she was riding in suddenly accelerated as her husband tried to park the vehicle. Slavik contends the vehicle jumped the curb, crashed through a fence and flew over a cliff into the Pacific Ocean.
Toyota, in a court filing, alleges the Ezal vehicle "was misused or improperly maintained," causing or contributing to the "alleged incident..."
Mechanical Or Electrical?
The Slavik case brings front and center a claim that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has begun to probe: whether an electronic glitch not addressed by Toyota's mechanical fix lurks in millions of its vehicles.
Slavik contends the problem lies in Toyota's failure to use brake override systems that could prevent electronic glitches.
Dallas attorney Lee Brown is making a similar case. After studying complaints filed with the NHTSA, "I think there is an electronic problem," he said. "If you look at the nature of the complaints, the facts are more aligned with an electronic explanation." He is looking at filing a number of potential lawsuits.
Toyota insists the problem is not electronic.
"I can assure you the defect we have identified is mechanical," said company spokesman John Hanson. "We have identified no electronic problem related to the sticking- pedal problem. After many years of exhaustive testing, we have found no evidence of electronic problems with our electronic throttle controls that would have led to unwanted acceleration."
Toyota does plan to offer brake overrides on all models starting in 2011. The NHTSA says it's "looking into" making such systems standard.
Plaintiffs' attorneys aim to sharply expand the problem far beyond the cars recalled by Toyota, which mostly involve 2009-10 models. Slavik says sudden acceleration complaints from 2002-06 Toyota Camrys outnumber those of any other model or range of years.
Toyota acknowledges acceleration complaints hailing back to 2002. Safety Research & Strategies, a research and advocacy firm, lists 26 deaths as potentially linked.
NHTSA has received "in excess of 1,000 complaints" of sudden unintended acceleration in various Toyota models.
Toyota has ordered a massive recall and halted sales of eight models, including the flagship Camry and Corolla. These eight models account for 58% of Toyota sales, Morgan Stanley analyst Noriaki Hirakata wrote in a Jan. 27 report.
But attorneys are eyeing complaints about other vehicles. Tracy, for one, claims unintended acceleration problems also lie in the high-profit Lexus ES 350 and the Prius hybrid, already the focus of braking issues. Toyota has said it is working on solving Prius' brake problem.
FIRST TIME INSTITUTE RATES SMALL PICKUPS FOR ROLLOVER PROTECTION;
ONLY ONE MODEL RATES GOOD IN TEST THAT ASSURES STRENGTH OF ROOF
ARLINGTON, VA — The Nissan Frontier has the strongest roof and the Chevrolet Colorado the weakest among 5 small pickup trucks, all 2010 models, that recently were tested for rollover protection by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Frontier, also sold as the Suzuki Equator, is the only pickup in the group to earn the highest rating of good. The Ford Ranger is rated acceptable while the Dodge Dakota, Toyota Tacoma, and Colorado (also sold as the GMC Canyon) earn the second lowest rating of marginal.
The rating system is based on Institute research showing that occupants in rollover crashes benefit from stronger roofs. Vehicles rated good must have roofs that are more than twice as strong as the minimum required under the current federal safety standard. The ratings, products of the Institute's new roof strength testing program, add to consumer information tests that rate vehicles' front, side, and rear crashworthiness. The rollover test is designed to help consumers pick vehicles that will protect them the best in one of the most serious kinds of crashes.
"As a group, small pickups aren't performing as well as small cars or small SUVs in all of the
Institute's safety tests.
None of the ones we tested is a top-notch performer across the board. In fact, no small pickup earns our Top Safety Pick award," says Institute senior vice president David Zuby. The Frontier came close to winning the 2010 award, but it's rated acceptable instead of good for protection against neck injury in rear crashes. To earn Top Safety Pick, a vehicle has to earn good ratings for protection in front, side, rear, and rollover crashes. It also has to have electronic stability control.
Nearly 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. When vehicles roll, their roofs hit the ground, deform, and crush. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk of injury from contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent people, especially those who aren't using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof deformed. Roofs that don't collapse help keep people inside vehicles when they roll.
Rollovers are much more common for SUVs and pickup trucks than for cars. In 2008 almost half (47 percent) of all pickup occupants killed in crashes were in trucks that rolled over. This compares with 58 percent of deaths in SUVs and 25 percent in cars.
The best occupant protection is to keep vehicles from rolling in the first place. Electronic stability control is significantly reducing rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When vehicles roll, side curtain airbags help protect people. Safety belt use is essential.
In the Institute's roof strength test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 corner of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, a roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. For an acceptable rating, the minimum strength-to-weight ratio required is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5, and anything lower than that is poor.
The Nissan Frontier withstood a force of just over 4 times its weight. This compares with 2.9 times weight for the Colorado.
A strength-to-weight ratio of 4 reflects an estimated 50 percent reduction in serious or fatal injury risk in single-vehicle rollover crashes, compared with the current federal standard of 1.5.
In April 2009, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ended numerous delays by unveiling a new rule that raises the federal roof strength requirement, currently a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.5, to 3 for vehicles with weight ratings up to 6,000 pounds. Roofs on vehicles with weight ratings 6,000 to 10,000 pounds will be required to withstand a force equal to 1.5 times their unloaded weight, whereas these vehicles' roofs are not regulated under the old standard.
Another requirement is that roofs maintain sufficient headroom during testing. For the first time, the government will require the same performance on both sides of a roof when tested sequentially. Phase-in begins in September 2012, and all vehicles must comply by September 2016.
"The long phase-in of the new standard means roofs won't have to get stronger right away," Zuby points out, "so we plan to continue rating vehicle roof strength for the foreseeable future. We want to reward manufacturers who are ahead of their competition for protecting people in rollovers."
In addition to the new roof strength ratings, the Institute conducted side tests of small pickup truck models. Earning good ratings are the Frontier, with standard front and rear head curtain airbags plus front torso airbags. Also earning good ratings are the Ranger, with standard front-seat mounted combination head and torso airbags, and the Tacoma, which the Institute tested in 2008.
In contrast, the Colorado is rated poor for occupant protection in side crashes. It's equipped with standard curtain side airbags but lacks additional airbags designed to protect a driver's torso.
The Colorado's poor structure, along with poor protection for the driver dummy's chest and pelvis, contributed to its poor rating overall. Plus the dummy's head came close to moving around the curtain airbag during the impact by the intruding barrier.
"A slightly different crash configuration could have resulted in a direct hit from the barrier on the dummy's head," Zuby explains.
The test of the Dakota produced a different problem. Its optional curtain side airbags failed to deploy. This is the first time this has happened in an Institute side test.
Chrysler engineers say they've identified a problem with the computer program algorithm that calculates when to fire the airbags and are working on a remedy. When the computer program is fixed, the Institute will conduct another test of the Dakota and publish the results.
Zuby notes that "the Dakota is the only 2010 small pickup the Institute tested that has optional rather than standard side airbags. Most of the auto industry pledged to get standard side airbags in every new passenger vehicle by now."
Chrysler was among 15 manufacturers who got together in 2003 and agreed on the first set of rules designed to reduce the risks for people in front and side crashes involving larger and heavier SUVs and pickup trucks. Although the compatibility agreement specified performance criteria and not features, the idea was to make safety improvements like installing side airbags in all passenger vehicles more quickly than would have been the case with a government regulation.
"Chrysler is the only manufacturer we know of that isn't living up to the spirit of the 2003 agreement,"
Zuby says.
Side evaluations are based on performance in a crash test in which the side of a vehicle is struck by a barrier moving at 31 mph. The barrier represents the front end of another pickup or SUV. Ratings reflect injury measures recorded on 2 instrumented SID-IIs dummies representing 5th percentile women, assessment of head protection countermeasures, and the vehicle's structural performance during the impact.
SOME PICKUPS PERFORM POORLY IN IIHS TESTS
Frontier tops, Colorado bottoms out;
Canadian Auto PressFebruary 12, 2010
It has long been known that certain minivan and truck body styles don't offer good crash protection.
While minivans have made significant gains in passenger protection, pickup trucks haven't, at least according to the latest release by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
The IIHS tested five compact pickup trucks for both rollover and side-impact crashes recently, and the segment didn't fare well.
"As a group, small pickups aren't performing as well as small cars or small SUVs in all of the institute's safety tests," said David Zuby, IIHS's senior vice-president. "None of the ones we tested is a top-notch performer across the board."
Kudos do go to Nissan's Frontier for getting a "good" rating for rollover protection, and praise can go to Ford for its long-lived Ranger, which received an "acceptable" rating.
The Chevrolet Colorado (and we might as well throw its twin, GMC Canyon, into the mix too, even though it wasn't tested) only received a rating of "marginal," as did the mid-sized Dodge Dakota and Toyota Tacoma.
The Tacoma, the segment's bestselling pickup truck, is only "marginal" in rollover protection, although it did better in side-impact crash tests, where it joined the Ranger and Frontier with a "good" rating.
The Colorado? It received the lowest possible score of "poor."
You might have noticed that the Dakota isn't mentioned above, and that's because its optional side airbags failed to deploy during testing.
According to Chrysler, it was a software problem, and it's working to remedy the situation, at which point the IIHS will retest the truck and give its stamp of approval, or disapproval.
IIHS Tests Kids' Booster Seats, Finds Many of them Lacking
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has tested 60 common booster seats, and found that only 15 of them provide good protection for children in all types of vehicles. The point of a booster seat is to make the car seat belts fit properly across a child's chest and hips, but many of the boosters caused the belts to sit too high -- endangering a child's neck or abdomen.
Research shows that children 4-8 years old who ride in boosters are 45 percent less likely to sustain crash injuries than children restrained by vehicle safety belts alone. The IIHS tests, conducted with a crash-test dummy the size of a 6-year-old, illustrate that many popular models aren't as safe as they purport to be. Boosters were ranked as "Best Bets," "Good Bets," and "Not Recommended."
"Parents can't tell a good booster from a bad one just by comparing design features and price," says Anne McCartt, Institute senior vice president for research. State laws increasingly require booster seats for children who have outgrown toddler car seats, but there's no federal rule governing how a booster should be designed.
A few just-released boosters didn't come to market in time for this round of evaluations, but the Institute will rate them soon and share results at iihs.org. The plan is to assess new models throughout the year, much like the Institute evaluates new vehicles for Top Safety Pick awards.
BEST BETS: Combi Dakota backless w/clip; Recaro Young Sport; Recaro Vivo; Maxi-Cosi Rodi XR; Evenflo Big Kid Amp backless w/clip; Eddie Bauer Auto Booster; Cosco Juvenile Pronto; Britax Frontier; Clek Oobr
GOOD BETS: Combi Kobuk backless w/clip; Maxi-Cosi Rodi; Evenflo Symphony 65; Britax Parkway SG; Graco TurboBooster SafeSeat Wander; Graco TurboBooster SafeSeat Sachi
NOT RECOMMENDED: Harmony Secure Comfort Deluxe backless w/clip; Combi Kobuk; Evenflo Express; Eddie Bauer Deluxe; Safety 1st Alpha Omega Elite; Evenflo Sightseer; Alpha Omega Elite; Eddie Bauer Deluxe 3-in-1; Safety 1st All-in-One; Alpha Omega Luxe Echelon; Alpha Omega
Note: Unless the booster name indicates it is a backless seat, all are highbacks. Go to iihs.org for the full list of model numbers and booster seat pictures. More information about child seats is available on Edmunds' Women and Family Car Guide and Car Safety Guide.
Posted by
Joanne Helperin December 22, 2009, 11:00 AM
DALLAS’ BROWN LAW FIRM FILES FEDERAL COMPLAINT AGAINST KIA MOTORS CORP.
The goal is to force a recall of 2002 Kia Spectras, which could have defective air bags, lawyers say
By Jeff Bounds (Dallas Business Journal, December 11, 2009)
KiaMotors Corp. has been hit with a big jury verdict in a local wrongful-death case, and now the Dallas law firm that represented the victim’s family is seeking a recall of one of the carmaker’s models. After three years in court, family members of Andrea Ruiz were awarded a multimillion-dollar verdict. But their attorneys at Dallas’ Brown Law Firm say that because Kia is appealing, the Ruiz family may have to wait years before seeing any money. Meanwhile, Lee Brown, the firm’s managing partner, has filed a complaint with federal regulators seeking a recall of the 2002 Kia Spectra to fix an allegedly defective air bag system. The Brown Law Firm and the Ruiz family won’t have it easy in their battle with Kia. A Dallas judge threw out $2.5 million in punitive damages that the jury awarded, and Kia is seeking a retrial of the case.
JURY AWARDS $4.5 MILLION TO FAMILY OF AIRBAG VICTIM
On October 16, 2009, a Dallas jury awarded $4.5 million ($2 million in compensatory damages and $2.5 million in punitive damages) to the family of Andrea Ruiz who had brought wrongful death claims against Harvey Ray Tomlin, Kia Motors Corporation, and Kia Motors America, Inc. In 2006, a GMC pickup operated by Mr. Tomlin crossed the centerline of the highway violently striking a 2002 Kia Spectra operated by Andrea Ruiz. Although Mrs. Ruiz was properly wearing her seat belt, her driver’s airbag did not deploy and she sustained fatal neck injuries. However, her daughter, Suzanna Ruiz, was seated in the front right passenger seat and did not have any injuries because her passenger airbag properly deployed in the crash. Plaintiffs brought negligence claims against Mr. Tomlin for causing the accident and negligence claims against the Kia Defendants for the failure of the driver airbag to deploy. Ruiz, et al v. Kia Motors Corporation, et al., No. 06-06281 Court: 95th District Court, Dallas County, Texas Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: Lee Brown and Eric Porterfield of The Brown Law Firm and Mary Alice McLarty of The McLarty Firm, P.C. Defense Attorneys: Kurt Kern, Melissa A. Dorman, and Yesenia E. Cardenas-Colenso of Hartline, Dacus, Dreyer & Kern, L.L.P
NHTSA PROPOSES STURDIER SIDE AIRBAGS DO MORE DURING ROLLOVERS
EJECTION PREVENTION GOAL IS NEW
By Neil Roland (Automotive News, December 2, 2009 - 4:25 pm ET)
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration wants to require the vast majority of new cars and light trucks to have side airbags that are bigger, longer-inflating and more secure than those now used to prevent motorists from being ejected during rollovers.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed new rules yesterday that would require nearly all vehicles less than 10,000 pounds to have the sturdier airbags in the first three rows of seats by 2017.
The side curtain airbags would have to cover more of the window, stay inflated longer and possibly be tethered to keep vehicle occupants inside during a rollover, the proposal says.
The proposal also would extend side airbag installation to all new cars and light trucks except for walk-in vans.
“Occupants have a much better chance of surviving a crash if they are not ejected from their vehicles,” the 53-page proposal says.
An average of 6,170 deaths and 5,270 serious injuries are caused each year by ejections through side windows, according to NHTSA.
The rules, if adopted, would save about 6.2 percent of these casualties, according to NHTSA data.
Motorists who aren’t wearing seat belts would derive most of the benefits from the new airbags, but 13 percent of occupants wearing belts also would benefit, NHTSA said.
Under the proposal, the electronic sensors that trigger the airbags during a crash or rollover would have to be improved.
The plan also asks whether side windows should be glazed in multiple layers to help prevent ejections.
NHTSA seeks public comment over the next 60 days before the administration makes a decision.
The proposal stems from a congressional mandate that also required stronger roofs, better door latches along with electronic devices to stabilize vehicles.
The plan would cost automakers about $34 a vehicle more than they already plan to spend on 2011 side airbags, for a total of $583 million industrywide, the agency said.
“We’re still reviewing the proposal, but given that safety is our highest priority, we share NHTSA’s concern for enhanced safety in all aspects of operating a vehicle,” said Wade Newton, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.
One question automakers will be asking, said Newton, is “whether the rules would require re-engineering, or would they facilitate what we’re already doing?”
Side airbags were standard or optional on 76 percent of 2008 vehicles, according to the alliance, a group of 11 domestic and foreign automakers.
Ford Motor Co. side airbags, introduced in 2002, inflate for six seconds, the proposal said, but most often stay open for just 0.1 seconds. General Motors Co.’s side airbags inflate for five seconds.
SUVs accounted for 27 percent of rollover deaths in 2007, according to NHTSA.
Click here to review Adobe PDF.
NHTSA HAS PUBLISHED A NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
FOR A NEW FMVSS 226 TO REDUCE EJECTION IN SIDE IMPACTS.
It envisions compliance via side curtain air bags supplemented by improved laminated glazing, and proposes a compliance test involving an interior-side window impact device. The NPRM responds to a requirement in the SAFETEA act. Please see attached to view entire NPRM in pdf format.
Click here to review the notice (Adobe PDF).
WHAT ARE IIHS LEAST SAFE CARS?
By Stephen Markley (Cars.com Kicking Tires)
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released its 2010 Top Safety Picks, which include all vehicles that received a “Good” rating in the different crash tests, but what about those vehicles that didn’t fare so well? USA Today wondered the same thing and looked them up for us.
The good news is there really aren’t any completely dangerous vehicles on the road anymore. Regulation and consumer demand for safer cars have increased vehicle-safety standards to new heights. Hence the term “least safe” in the headline.
Mini Cars
2009 Chevrolet Aveo — Poor when hit from the rear
2009 Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio — Poor when hit from the side or rear
Small Cars
2009 Volkswagen New Beetle — Poor when hit from the side
2010 Chrysler PT Cruiser — Poor when hit from the side or the rear
Large Luxury Cars
2010 Infiniti M35/M45 — Poor when hit from the rear
2010 Cadillac STS — Poor when hit from the rear
Small SUVs
2010 Ford Escape Hybrid; Mercury Mariner Hybrid and Mazda Tribute Hybrid — Poor in a rollover
2009 Hyundai Tucson — Poor in a rollover
2010 Jeep Wrangler — Poor when hit from the side
Midsize SUVs
2009 Hummer H3 — Poor when hit from the rear
2009 Kia Sorento — Poor when hit from the side
2009 Nissan Quest — Poor when hit from the rear
2010 Toyota Sienna — Poor when hit from the rear
NEW SIDE-IMPACT TEST TO BE ADDED
The New York Times
Online Article
NEW ROOF CRUSH RATING SYSTEMS
The Institute's roof strength rating system will help consumers pick vehicles that will help protect them in rollover crashes. Roof strength will become a component of the Top Safety Pick criteria for 2010 models.
Procedures for rating roof strength
Minicars: roof strength details
Small SUVs: roof strength details
U.S. DOT Doubles Roof Strength Standard for Light Vehicles
Announces First Ever Standards for Heavier Vehicles
DOT 58-09 - Thursday, April 30, 2009
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced tough, new roof standards that will significantly strengthen vehicle roof structures and improve rollover crash protection.
U.S. DOT Doubles Roof Strength Standard for Light Vehicles
Announces First Ever Standards for Heavier Vehicles
DOT 58-09 -
Thursday, April 30, 2009
U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced tough, new roof standards that will significantly strengthen vehicle roof structures and improve rollover crash protection.
“Rollovers are the deadliest crashes on our highways and today's rule will help occupants survive these horrific events,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
The new regulation from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will double the current roof strength requirement for light vehicles weighing up to 6,000 pounds.
It specifies that both the driver and passenger sides of the roof must be capable of withstanding a force equal to three times the weight of the vehicle.
The current standard calls for roofs to withstand 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle, applied to one side of the roof, for light vehicles up to 6,000 pounds.
Heavier vehicles from 6,000 to 10,000 pounds, which have never been regulated, must now have both sides of the roof capable of withstanding a force equal to 1.5 times the weight of the vehicle.
The phase-in schedule, which begins in September 2012, will be completed for all affected vehicles by the 2017 model year.
Secretary LaHood also reminded Americans that wearing a safety belt will significantly improve the chance of survival in a rollover crash. They keep people in their seats and can prevent them from being ejected in rollover crashes.
“These new standards go a long way toward reducing deaths, but safety belts are the first, most important step everyone should take to protecting themselves and their families,” he said.
The tougher roof crush requirements are part of a comprehensive plan to address rollover crashes, which kill about 10,000 people annually. That approach includes a mandated electronic stability control system, which helps prevent the rollover from occurring.
Read the final rule here.
DUSTIN BENHAM CO-AUTHORED PAPER FOR SMU LAW REVIEW
Mr. Benham co-authored a paper entitled “Personal Torts” which was published in the SMU Law Review.
Click here to review the article (Adobe PDF).
TEXAS SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS JUDGMENT AGAINST GM
On June 20, 2008, the Texas Supreme Court refused to set aside a $18.5 million judgment against General Motors Corporation. Lee Brown of The Brown Law Firm says: “This is a landmark victory for the Burry family and all consumers.” Click Here to review the Order (Adobe PDF).
For more information about this case, please contact Lee Brown at 214/624-3400, lbrown@leebrownlaw.com.
FEDERAL COURT SANCTIONS FORD
The Honorable Chad Everingham, Magistrate to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, entered a sanctions order against Ford Motor Company for its discovery abuse in an Electronic Stability Control (ESC) and Side Airbag (SIAB) case. Judge Everingham stated in his Order: “Ford’s practices in resisting relevant discovery and refusing to tender 30(b)(6) witnesses in a timely manner are consistent with its prior conduct in this court. In addition to the relief contained herein, the court will entertain further requests for relief at the pre-trial conference once the court has reviewed Ford’s sworn statement concerning the production the court has ordered.” Click Here to review the Order (Adobe PDF).
For more information about this case, please contact Lee Brown at 214/624-3400, lbrown@leebrownlaw.com.
DUSTIN BENHAM REPRESENTS PETITIONER BEFORE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Following highly-publicized victories in the United States Supreme Court as a brief-writer and co-counsel for Amicus Curiae in United States v. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. ___ (2007) and as second-chair appellate counsel for petitioner in Spears v. United States, 552 U.S. ___ (2008), Dustin Benham has again been retained, pro bono, to represent the petitioner in Spears v. United States II. In Spears II, Steven Spears again petitions the United States Supreme Court for relief from his sentence. His original, lengthy sentence was re-affirmed on remand to the Eighth Circuit after the Supreme Court vacated it. In the new appeal, Steven Spears argues that his sentence violates both federal law and the Sixth Amendment. In particular, Spears maintains that trial judges should have discretion to fashion sentences that vary from the federal sentencing guidelines based on the disparity in guidelines’ sentences for crimes involving cocaine or cocaine base. This disparity has resulted in wide-ranging problems, from overcrowded prisons to disparity in treatment of individuals based on race and economic factors. During this representation, Mr. Benham has worked closely with lead counsel and Baylor Law School Professor Mark Osler.
For more information on Dustin Benham’s work and the Supreme Court cases at issue see the following articles:
Pro Bono Work by Baylor Law Professor, Student and Graduate
Impacts
U.S. Supreme Court Cocaine Sentencing Case - Baylor University
Court Restores Sentencing Powers of Federal Judges - The New York Times