June 1, 2006
Reprinted from The Safety Record, V. 3 Issue 3, May / June 2006
Did Cooper Tire knowingly hire a felon convicted of insurance fraud charges to spirit away physical evidence of failed tires before police investigators or plaintiffs’ attorney could collect or analyze then? And where is a key piece of evidence in a 2001 tread separation case that was taken from the accident scene?
These are the questions plaguing Loza V. Cooper, a Phoenix rollover case, set for trial this September. In September 2001, Elisa Loza was the rear-seat passenger in a 1996 Ford Super Club E350 with Cooper-made Hercules all-track radial LTs. Her husband was driving on a highway near Gila Bend, Arizona, when, her estate alleges, a Cooper tire experienced a tread separation. Mrs. Loza died in the rollover accident that resulted.
March 1, 2006
Consumer and state government groups are becoming alarmed at a surge of regulations and bills designed to protect industry, while usurping stronger state regulations and consumers’ rights in state courts through pre-emption clauses and laws.
Six years ago, Ford Motor Company laid the blame for Explorer rollovers on defective Firestone tires, but newly available data shows that even with replacement tires, tire-related rollover crashes in Explorers are growing and internal documents unearthed during recent litigation show that the popular SUV’s stability problems are also rooted in vehicle design.
Continental and Michelin recently issued Technical Bulletins on tire aging, joining a growing chorus of tire manufacturers and automakers issuing tire age replacement guidelines for the U.S. market. These bulletins are nearly identical to the Bridgestone-Firestone October 2005 recommendation that specified all tires should be removed after 10 years regardless of the remaining tread depth. They also follow guidelines published in overseas markets that have been in circulation for several years (Safety Record V3, Issue 1).
January 1, 2006
A provision in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s proposed roof crush standard that would preempt state tort law would transfer the societal costs of caring for rollover crash victims to the states, discourage manufacturers from improving vehicles’ crashworthiness and usurp Congressional authority, a diverse group of influential commenters has argued.
For the first time in 32 years, the NHTSA is proposing to strengthen vehicle roofs and extend the standard to cover vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 10,000 pounds, as part of an alleged “comprehensive plan for reducing the risk of death and serious injury from rollover crashes.” The proposed regulation would increase the force that vehicles are required to withstand from 1.5 to 2.5 times their unloaded vehicle weight and replace the 22,240 Newton maximum force limit for passenger cars. It would also change the certifying test from the current plate movement limit of 5 inches with a new direct limit on headroom reduction. (See The Safety Record, V2, I4).
A Florida judge has granted the advocacy group Public Citizen a hearing next month to determine if the court should again make public “critically important auto safety documents” on roof strength that helped the plaintiffs win a $10.2 million verdict in Duncan v. Ford.
Tire age degradation hit the radar of safety advocates, regulators and members of Congress following the Firestone ATX / Wilderness recalls in 2000 and 2001 when experts concluded that age degradation played a role in the catastrophic failure of these tires. Since the recalls Safety Research & Strategies (SRS) began examining what was known about the issue worldwide and found startling evidence that both tire and vehicle manufacturers have known tires, whether or not they are actually used, can experience tread separations due to internal oxidative aging, a process that is largely invisible. Following SRS’ docket submissions to NHTSA about their findings and an active campaign to alert the public of the danger through the media, some manufacturers have quietly started to address the issue.
October 1, 2005
WASHINGTON, D.C. – If you didn’t already know it was there, you might have missed it entirely in the 45-page proposal to upgrade the roof crush resistance standard: a one-sentence clause tucked in Part 13 amid federal boilerplate, indemnifying manufacturers who met the proposed standard from lawsuits alleging a defect.
Known as a preemption clause, NHTSA’s August 19 proposal was the second time in as many months the federal agency has wrapped civil justice reform and auto safety standards into one package that is rousing the ire of consumer advocates, plaintiffs’ attorneys, and those concerned about Federalism and cost of care transfer from the industry to the public sector.
Since Ford Motor Company purchased Volvo in 1999 and made the company a division of its Premier Auto Group, Ford has reaped significant profits from the Swedish automaker whose hallmark is safety. But, Ford is also inheriting a headache as Volvo’s position on important safety issues conflicts with those of it corporate parent-and these conflicts keep surfacing in the public despite Ford’s efforts to keep them secret. This conflict is playing out in litigation and in has seeped into the public in one of the most controversial areas of motor vehicle safety-occupant protection in rollover crashes.
To the dismay of some highway safety groups, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has decided to withdraw a proposal to add a high speed frontal offset crash test to its occupant crash protection standard.