FUNNY BUCKLES
For this story I begin with the typical report-to-the-client-lawyer-to deliver-to-the-court format below. I addressed a report structured like this to the lawyer.
==================================
BACKGROUND OF THE INCIDENT:
On July 3, 1998, CSI, Inc. began to investigate the cause of the injuries to your client, Mrs. Roberta Robinson. On November 30, 1997, Mrs. Robinson was riding in the left rear seat, behind her daughter who was driving a 1995 Geo Prizm. They were southbound on Brightstar Road
CONCLUSIONS:
It is my technical opinion with a reasonable degree of engineering certainty, based on the evidence available to me, that the severity of the injuries to Mrs. Robinson was increased by her ejection through the rear window during the overturn of the 1995 Geo Prizm. Her lap and shoulder belt failed to restrain her because of a design defect. That defect is the unnecessary complication of providing different seat belt buckles for the center lap belt and the left rear belt latch plate.
Excluding any other cause for her to be thrown from the belt and the vehicle and accepting her sworn testimony that she had in fact buckled the belt before the accident, it is more likely than not that the above described design defect was the direct cause of her being ejected from the car and of the injuries suffered by her during and after the ejection from the car manufactured by the defendants
EVIDENCE:
The evidence made available to me includes the following:
· A copy of the police report.
· A video tape of an inspection of the seat belts in the rear of the Geo Prizm.
· A set of color photos of the same inspection.
· A copy of the transcript of the deposition of Mrs. Robinson.
· Medical records describing the nature of the injuries to Mrs. Robinson
DISCUSSION:
Here are some additional background details. Shortly after the morning rush hour, on a snowy day, Mrs. Robin Henry, the owner and driver of the Prizm, and her daughter Melody were going shopping. First, however, they drove to the mother of Mrs. Henry (Mrs. Robinson) to pick her up at her home for Christmas shopping. It was a half a block from the intersection with Brightstar Avenue
Mrs. Henry reacted to the oncoming pickup truck by beginning to turn to her right. She was not quick enough. The truck did not hit the front of the Prizm. It did hit the left front fender with a concentrated impact near the airbag sensor. Both the driver and passenger airbags deployed, to the benefit of the mother and her daughter.
The truck did make deep gouges in the side of the left fenders and doors, forcing the Prizm to go fully across the shoulder on the right, and down into a ditch. The car went partially up on the far side steep embankment, where it dug its front end into the earth. That caused the Prizm to snap to its left, clockwise, overturn and slide backward on its roof to a stop at the bottom of the ditch.
The half-turn rollover itself was not very violent, but it did cause the rear window to shatter. Mrs. Robinson was first thrown forward toward the back of her granddaughter’s seat. Then as the car overturned, she fell onto the roof, with her back down and feet toward the rear. After the end-for-end rollover, Mrs. Robinson slid ahead (in the original direction of the Prizm) as the car slowed its backward slide in the ditch. She was deeply gashed as she came out through the jagged glass remaining in the periphery of the back window. It imagine this, think of the image, often seen in movies, of a shark coming at you with its jaw gaping.
Note this – there was not a fully-frontal collision with the pickup truck. No one inside the Prizm was thrown forward with such great force as to be injured. Mrs. Robinson’s other older granddaughter, Maryann, was properly using the lap and shoulder belt in the left rear. None had the typical welts on their body from loading the seatbelt straps with impact. The defect is that Mrs. Robinson was first thrown lightly to her left during the sideswipe, and then she was thrown around more laterally during the rollover, then toward the right front seat back when the front end dug it. So far, none of that made for serious injury. During the half turn rollover and end for end twist, Mrs. Robinson fell onto the padded ceiling. Her injuries did not include any broken bones. After the car came to rest, she did look like a tiger’s claws had raked her. Maryann remained inside the car.
It is common knowledge that the Geo Prizm sedan, sold by Chevrolet dealer, is a clone of the popular Toyota Corolla manufactured in California Japan (Toyota
One short strap holds each buckle close to the seat cushion. The buckles for the left-side and center buckles are close together. The buckle intended for the center lap belt latch plate has the word CENTER molded into one side of the black plastic. If one attempts to insert the latch plate for left side or right side shoulder belt into that buckle, it would eject the latch plate because of a spring inside the buckle. This is intended to alert the consumer that the latch plate has been inserted into the wrong buckle.
This pop-out warning can easily fail due to false latching. That occurs when friction alone holds the latch plate in place against the force of the ejector spring. It is likely that an adult in the narrow back seat of the Prizm would find that both buckles were almost under her buttocks, making it even harder to read the embossed warning, and holding the latch plate with pressure.
=============================== end of report
STICKY BUCKLES – in court
Years before, most Japanese cars and a few domestic cars from General Motors were plagued with claims of false latching to the front seat belts. All of these cars had the kind of belt buckle that stood up on a stalk at the inboard side of the front bucket seats. The buckles were grey or black. The push button release button was bright red, positioned at the top, inward edge of the buckle. The latch under the push button failed to engage the shoulder belt latch plate. The latch plate remained inside the buckle because of the accumulation of debris that wedged the plate. It was argued that the frictional false latch was the fault of the user who allowed food or drink to fall into the open slot of the buckle.
In earlier lawsuits, the plaintiff law firm demanded to review documents from the manufacturer of the seat belt buckles. It became obvious, during review of company documents that the company making the buckles knew of the problem. They had even sent letters to the auto companies that there was a problem. Originally, the buckle maker formulated red plastic containing cadmium as an additive. The factory, in Europe , had to discontinue the use of metallic cadmium, which is toxic. Later they discovered that the cadmium prevented embrittlement of the red plastic by ultraviolet rays of intense sunlight and heat. Without that metallic element, eventually, small flakes of deteriorating plastic, worn off the red button, filled the bottom of the buckle. That stuff prevented the buckle pawl (hook) from engaging the hole in the latch plate. Worse, the additional friction held the latch plate down in the slot so that the user was unaware that the seat belt was not going to hold them back in a crash. Eventually, the buckle maker reformulated the red plastic to end the embrittlement.
The funny part of the story is that I can describe another cause of apparent false latching. In court I will carefully say that this would be attributed to constant pressure of the user’s buttocks against the latch plate, wedging it in the slot of the buckle. This was a problem unique to the back seat of smaller cars like the Geo Prizm.
Domestic cars, including those designed and manufactured in North America by Ford and General Motors, such as the GM Buick LeSabre, have better seat belt buckles. When a person inserts the latch plate into any buckle on the rear seat, it will click and be retained. All three buckles in the back are exactly alike.
The design of rear seat buckles on the Prizm is dangerous and defective in that the rear seat belt buckles for the left seating position and the center seating position are located immediately next to one another such that it is indistinguishable to the ordinary consumer as to which buckle goes with which belt. All three buckles are black. The one intended for use with the center lap belt has the word CENTER molded into the face of the buckle.
Mrs. Robinson attempted to put on the shoulder belt in the normal manner a reasonable person would use under the circumstances. There is difficulty of determining which buckle to use when a broad-beamed adult sits at the right rear. Both buckles sit low and very close to the hip. It was almost impossible for Mrs. Robinson to twist to see the sides of the buckles. The molded word CENTER has no color contrast. She could not easily see it in the shadow close to her body. Besides, it is difficult for a right-handed person to pull the latch plate over the torso with her left hand and press it down into the buckle. There is no rigid stalk to support the buckle, such as is found on many front seat buckles. Thus the person has the difficult task of feeling for and grasping the buckle with the right hand while pushing the latch plate into it with the left hand. Mrs. Robinson is a person who weighed 168 pounds in 1997. She was not familiar with riding on the left rear seat of this vehicle. Her daughter was the one who normally used it.
Based on the information I gleaned from the video tape and the photographs, I am convinced that the buckles in the back of this particular Prizm had indeed become subject to frictional false latching. In other words, the left rear seat belt latch plate goes into, but does not properly latch, the buckle designed for the center position. Because of the buttock-wedging noted above, the woman has a reasonable belief that she has buckled the seat belt properly. The latch plate fit into the slot to an extent and remained in the buckle. Thus, the user is deceived into the belief that he or she has fastened his or her seat belt properly while in fact the unlatched belt is of virtually no more benefit than no belt at all. During a crash or roll over, she would be lifted from the buckle and the belt would be free to slide out and retract.
It is also wrong, in my opinion, to depend upon a warning (the word CENTER) to cause a user to avoid a hazard. In this case, the hazard could be designed out of the product by using universal latch plates and buckles such as those used in domestic vehicles.
BACK TO THE TRIAL
I said all of that during my testimony at the trial. General Motors defense was simple. There were no marks on Mrs. Robinson to prove that she had used the seat belt at all. They said that large surveys show most passengers in the rear seat do not buckle up. Besides, they said, if the latch plate was jammed under her butt, it would be pulled out soon after the car was underway. The spring in the shoulder belt retractor would pull the belt up and out easily.
In the rebuttal phase, General Motors lawyers showed the jury a film that they made using a woman of the same size as Mrs. Robinson as a model. There was no sound on their showing. Normally no one uses sound in courtroom movies. Everyone in the courtroom saw that woman take the seat belt latch plate and insert it into the buckle. As soon as she wiggled slightly the belt popped out and retracted, just as the lawyer for GM said it would.
Our rebuttal of General Motors rebuttal was a disaster for them. The lawyer for our side had been able to get the judge to require GM to bring and produce the outtakes of the GM film. The judge agreed with us that GM had to show all the film – with the sound turned on. Showing the outtakes revealed that their female model made the same mistake made by Mrs. Robinson. Everyone could hear, in the background, the photographer tell the model not to sit on the buckle. We had argued that sitting on the buckle pinched the belt latch plate under the buttocks, preventing the shoulder strap from sliding out. So GM demonstrated that for us.
General Motors made another rebuttal that was weird. The experts for General Motors offered a justification for the Prizm design that I thought was hilarious, and I managed to show that jury that it was funny. They claimed that the center buckle must not be the same as the ones for the side. If it were, they say, one might put the shoulder belt latch plate into the center buckle, and then discover that the pushbutton was concealed between the strap and your hip. The buckle would be upside down, so to speak. They say that putting the latch plate into the correct buckle ensures that the release button is accessible on the side away from your body.
That is a silly argument. I do not know the real reason the Japanese car makers do that and I never thought to ask them. I do know from experience in a Buick LeSabre that the shoulder belt latch plate can be put into any buckle even if that one is twisted on the strap. So what? If my forefinger cannot press the button on the outside, my thumb can easily pop the button on the inside. What were they thinking when they made such a silly argument?
No comments:
Post a Comment