Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

hot air, wind bag or airbag?

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    HI folks, I need to get your opinions on this interesting airbag cases. Plaintiff’s Case: On a Saturday evening, a Female Driver of a 1996 Ford Taurus was on
    Message 1 of 3 , Sep 30 9:29 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      HI folks,
      I need to get your opinions on this interesting airbag cases.
      Plaintiff’s Case:
      On a Saturday evening, a Female Driver of a 1996 Ford Taurus was on her way
      home from the supermarket. The Driver was wearing her seat belt. Traveling on
      State Road 007, the Female Driver entered the entrance ramp of the Turnpike. As
      she traveled in the inside lane of the entrance ramp, the Female Driver’s
      vehicle slid on the rain dampened roadway, crossed through the outside lane, and
      ultimately collided with the outside concrete barrier. The vehicle impacted
      the wall on the right front of the vehicle at a speed of approximately 17 miles
      per hour. As a result of the crash, the driver’s side air bag deployed,
      killing the Female Driver. Damage to the vehicle from the crash was minimal.
      The Female Driver, Sally, was 29 years old at the time of the accident. She
      was a single mother and left behind her 3 ½ year old son. Sally was 5'9" and
      weighed 130 lbs, which is above average in stature. The primary cause of the
      Female Driver’s death was determined to be a lacerated vena cava (heart). She
      also suffered secondary injuries, including fractures to her right and left ribs,
      and significant bruising. It is believed that, if the air bag had not
      deployed, the Female Driver would still be alive today. Several EMT’s who responded
      to the scene of the accident reported that they were surprised that Sally died
      as a result of the crash, based on the severity of damage to the Taurus. A
      reconstruction of the crash estimated the Driver’s speed at the time of impact
      with the wall to be approximately 17 miles per hour, but because it was at an
      angle the actual impact speed adjusted for that angle, as is important for air
      bag deployment determinations, was between 7 to 10 miles per hour. Ford Motor
      Company designed the subject 1996 Ford Taurus to incorporate an air bag that,
      in frontal or angled-frontal crashes, must deploy at speeds of 14 miles per
      hour or greater, and must not deploy at speeds of 8 miles per hour or less. The
      bag "may" deploy if the accident is between 8 mph and 14 mph. The Plaintiff
      asserts that the air bag system for the 1996 Ford Taurus was defectively designed
      because it deployed in a low speed crash (i.e. below 10 mph where the female
      driver would not have been killed or seriously injured without a bag
      deployment, and that it was unreasonably dangerous to deploy an air bag with such risk
      being possible. The Plaintiff alleges that because a typical consumer would
      not expect to die as a result of a crash similar to the instant case and because
      Ford failed to set the deployment threshold at 10 mph or above, the vehicle
      was defective.


      Defendant’s Case.
      One Saturday evening, an unbelted Female Driver of a 1996 Ford Taurus was on
      her way home from the supermarket. Traveling on State Road 007, with a speed
      limit of 35 mph, under rainy weather conditions and limited visibility, the
      Female Driver entered the entrance ramp of the Turnpike at 55 mph. As she
      entered the inside lane of the entrance ramp, the Driver’s vehicle slid on the
      roadway, began to rotate in a counter clockwise manner, and crossed through the
      outside lane, and ultimately collided with the outside concrete barrier. At the
      time of the impact, the subject vehicle was traveling at a speed of 27 mph.
      Evidence markings at the accident scene revealed that the vehicle’s right front
      tire made 3 foot 11 inch scuff marks located along the concrete barrier wall.
      The right front of the vehicle then continued to scrape along the concrete
      barrier wall and came to a final rest. The Female Driver’s insurance company
      reported the vehicle damage as a total loss. Although her safety air bag deployed,
      Sally was tragically killed as a result of the accident. It is undisputed that
      the air bag was the primary cause of Sally’s death.
      Ford designs its air bags to protect occupants from serious or fatal injuries
      in frontal collisions. The impact dynamics of this crash with this 1996 Taurus
      ’s air bag system resulted in a change of velocity that was in the range the
      bag was meant to deploy (i.e. above the 8 mph "no fire" threshold set by
      Ford). In other words, when the vehicle hit the wall, the speed at the time of the
      impact was high enough to trigger the deployment of the air bag. An
      aggravating factor to the Driver’s injuries was the fact that Investigating officers
      from the law enforcement agency reported that the Female Driver was not wearing
      her seat belt at the time of the accident. Sally had a history of violating the
      law by not wearing her seatbelt. If the Driver had been wearing her seat
      belt, she would have been in the proper seating position so as to avoid the
      resulting injury from a deploying air bag. However, in this case, she came to be
      very close to the driver’s air bag when it deployed, and because she was
      "out-of-position", the force of the air bag had no where to go but into her chest
      which was just inches from the steering wheel where the bag was. In addition, at
      the time of the manufacture of the subject vehicle and its air bag system, it
      was not possible to engineer an air bag system that both met the federal
      government standards, and also avoided completely the possibility of life
      threatening injuries when the occupant is in very close proximity to a deploying air
      bag. In fact, the federal government stated that, "these deaths did not occur at
      random; they typically involved certain common factors. The persons who have
      been killed or seriously injured by an air bag were extremely close to the air
      bag at the time of deployment." Sally had to have been extremely close to the
      air bag before the crash occurred. If she had followed the car’s visor
      warning to stay "as far back as possible from the air bag", this tragedy would not
      have occurred. Finally, the 1996 Taurus utilized the state of the art
      technology that was available at the time of its manufacture for its class in the
      United States market. The air bag system in the 1996 Taurus was at the head of its
      class. The severity of this crash is representative of a typical air bag
      deployment crash. The air bag system contained in this vehicle was safe, effective
      in most collisions, and operated as designed and intended. It has saved
      thousands of lives, and while unbelted occupants who put themselves
      "out-of-position" may be at risk, the benefits in saved lives is great. Ford was not
      "negligent" in its design, and the bag was not "unreasonably" dangerous.


      Ok, any of you case sleuths want to figure out which side is right?
      all opinions a re welcome!!
      thanks for your input folks..

      Amy


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • ray_madison
      Plaintiff says she was wearing seat belt, defense says she was not, accordi= ng to police. Plaintiff loses.Ray Madison--- In
      Message 2 of 3 , Sep 30 10:51 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Plaintiff says she was wearing seat belt, defense says she was not, accordi=
        ng to
        police. Plaintiff loses.

        Ray Madison


        --- In infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com, Jurydoctor@a... wrote:
        > HI folks,
        > I need to get your opinions on this interesting airbag cases.
        > Plaintiff’s Case:
        > On a Saturday evening, a Female Driver of a 1996 Ford Taurus was on her w=
        ay
        > home from the supermarket. The Driver was wearing her seat belt. Travelin=
        g on
        > State Road 007, the Female Driver entered the entrance ramp of the Turnpi=
        ke. As
        > she traveled in the inside lane of the entrance ramp, the Female Driverâ€=
        ™s
        > vehicle slid on the rain dampened roadway, crossed through the outside la=
        ne, and
        > ultimately collided with the outside concrete barrier. The vehicle impact=
        ed
        > the wall on the right front of the vehicle at a speed of approximately 17=
        miles
        > per hour. As a result of the crash, the driver’s side air bag deployed,=

        > killing the Female Driver. Damage to the vehicle from the crash was minim=
        al.
        > The Female Driver, Sally, was 29 years old at the time of the accident. S=
        he
        > was a single mother and left behind her 3 ½ year old son. Sally was 5'9"=
        and
        > weighed 130 lbs, which is above average in stature. The primary cause of =
        the
        > Female Driver’s death was determined to be a lacerated vena cava (heart=
        ). She
        > also suffered secondary injuries, including fractures to her right and le=
        ft ribs,
        > and significant bruising. It is believed that, if the air bag had not
        > deployed, the Female Driver would still be alive today. Several EMT’s w=
        ho
        responded
        > to the scene of the accident reported that they were surprised that Sally=
        died
        > as a result of the crash, based on the severity of damage to the Taurus. =
        A
        > reconstruction of the crash estimated the Driver’s speed at the time of=
        impact
        > with the wall to be approximately 17 miles per hour, but because it was a=
        t an
        > angle the actual impact speed adjusted for that angle, as is important fo=
        r air
        > bag deployment determinations, was between 7 to 10 miles per hour. Ford M=
        otor
        > Company designed the subject 1996 Ford Taurus to incorporate an air bag t=
        hat,
        > in frontal or angled-frontal crashes, must deploy at speeds of 14 miles p=
        er
        > hour or greater, and must not deploy at speeds of 8 miles per hour or les=
        s. The
        > bag "may" deploy if the accident is between 8 mph and 14 mph. The Plainti=
        ff
        > asserts that the air bag system for the 1996 Ford Taurus was defectively =
        designed
        > because it deployed in a low speed crash (i.e. below 10 mph where the fem=
        ale
        > driver would not have been killed or seriously injured without a bag
        > deployment, and that it was unreasonably dangerous to deploy an air bag w=
        ith such
        risk
        > being possible. The Plaintiff alleges that because a typical consumer wou=
        ld
        > not expect to die as a result of a crash similar to the instant case and =
        because
        > Ford failed to set the deployment threshold at 10 mph or above, the vehic=
        le
        > was defective.
        >
        >
        > Defendant’s Case.
        > One Saturday evening, an unbelted Female Driver of a 1996 Ford Taurus was=
        on
        > her way home from the supermarket. Traveling on State Road 007, with a sp=
        eed
        > limit of 35 mph, under rainy weather conditions and limited visibility, t=
        he
        > Female Driver entered the entrance ramp of the Turnpike at 55 mph. As sh=
        e
        > entered the inside lane of the entrance ramp, the Driver’s vehicle slid=
        on the
        > roadway, began to rotate in a counter clockwise manner, and crossed throu=
        gh the
        > outside lane, and ultimately collided with the outside concrete barrier. =
        At the
        > time of the impact, the subject vehicle was traveling at a speed of 27 mp=
        h.
        > Evidence markings at the accident scene revealed that the vehicle’s rig=
        ht front
        > tire made 3 foot 11 inch scuff marks located along the concrete barrier w=
        all.
        > The right front of the vehicle then continued to scrape along the concret=
        e
        > barrier wall and came to a final rest. The Female Driver’s insurance co=
        mpany
        > reported the vehicle damage as a total loss. Although her safety air bag =
        deployed,
        > Sally was tragically killed as a result of the accident. It is undisputed=
        that
        > the air bag was the primary cause of Sally’s death.
        > Ford designs its air bags to protect occupants from serious or fatal inju=
        ries
        > in frontal collisions. The impact dynamics of this crash with this 1996 T=
        aurus
        > ’s air bag system resulted in a change of velocity that was in the rang=
        e the
        > bag was meant to deploy (i.e. above the 8 mph "no fire" threshold set by =

        > Ford). In other words, when the vehicle hit the wall, the speed at the ti=
        me of the
        > impact was high enough to trigger the deployment of the air bag. An
        > aggravating factor to the Driver’s injuries was the fact that Investiga=
        ting officers
        > from the law enforcement agency reported that the Female Driver was not w=
        earing
        > her seat belt at the time of the accident. Sally had a history of violati=
        ng the
        > law by not wearing her seatbelt. If the Driver had been wearing her seat =

        > belt, she would have been in the proper seating position so as to avoid t=
        he
        > resulting injury from a deploying air bag. However, in this case, she cam=
        e to be
        > very close to the driver’s air bag when it deployed, and because she wa=
        s
        > "out-of-position", the force of the air bag had no where to go but into h=
        er chest
        > which was just inches from the steering wheel where the bag was. In addit=
        ion, at
        > the time of the manufacture of the subject vehicle and its air bag system=
        , it
        > was not possible to engineer an air bag system that both met the federal =

        > government standards, and also avoided completely the possibility of life=

        > threatening injuries when the occupant is in very close proximity to a de=
        ploying air
        > bag. In fact, the federal government stated that, "these deaths did not o=
        ccur at
        > random; they typically involved certain common factors. The persons who h=
        ave
        > been killed or seriously injured by an air bag were extremely close to th=
        e air
        > bag at the time of deployment." Sally had to have been extremely close t=
        o the
        > air bag before the crash occurred. If she had followed the car’s visor =

        > warning to stay "as far back as possible from the air bag", this tragedy =
        would not
        > have occurred. Finally, the 1996 Taurus utilized the state of the art
        > technology that was available at the time of its manufacture for its clas=
        s in the
        > United States market. The air bag system in the 1996 Taurus was at the he=
        ad of its
        > class. The severity of this crash is representative of a typical air bag =

        > deployment crash. The air bag system contained in this vehicle was safe, =
        effective
        > in most collisions, and operated as designed and intended. It has saved
        > thousands of lives, and while unbelted occupants who put themselves
        > "out-of-position" may be at risk, the benefits in saved lives is great. F=
        ord was not
        > "negligent" in its design, and the bag was not "unreasonably" dangerous. =

        >
        >
        > Ok, any of you case sleuths want to figure out which side is right?
        > all opinions a re welcome!!
        > thanks for your input folks..
        >
        > Amy
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Ted :<)>
        Hi Amy, I d first like to say that I m not an accident re-constructionist, but I have more than a passing knowledge of automotive related issues. I think the
        Message 3 of 3 , Oct 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Amy,
          I'd first like to say that I'm not an accident re-constructionist, but I have more than a passing knowledge of automotive related issues.
          I think the first thing you need to determine is if the vehicle has ABS (Anti-lock Braking System). Then you need to determine which sensor(s) send the speed signal to the cars computer for the air bag (it might have a seperate air bag computer). Find a GOOD Ford brake technician via referral. I assume a re-constructionist can determine the speed of the vehicle based on skid marks, etc, but the vehicle's computer has no way of knowing how fast the car is going if it's skidding sideways or the brakes are firmly applied. Without ABS it won't have the wheel (speed) sensors to send a signal of wheel speed. Also, without ABS, if the brakes were firmly applied, the speed reading sent to the computer would be 0 mph (or very close to it). In this case the only source for wheel speed would be at the transmission &/or the speedometer head in the dash, in which case both readings would also be 0 mph.
          On the other hand, if the vehicle does have ABS an accurate speed reading IS available to the vehicle's computer up until impact, UNLESS it's skidding sideways.
          Bottom line: If the front tires show FORWARD skid marks up until impact, the speed reading was zero & the bag should not have deployed. The reason I say front tires is because it's a front wheel drive vehicle & that's where the speedometer reading is most likely taken from. Also, the rear tires could show skidding & it could still have ABS (some vehicles only have ABS on the front brakes because the front brakes do 80% to 90% of the stopping.
          Good luck & let us know how it turns out.

          Ted Turney
          tedeb@...
          760-612-9996
          PPS# 1006
          Ramona, CA (San Diego County)
          Fax 760-789-0773

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Jurydoctor@...
          To: infoguys-list@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: hunterslist@yahoogroups.com ; thebattleground@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 9:29 AM
          Subject: [infoguys-list] hot air, wind bag or airbag?


          HI folks,
          I need to get your opinions on this interesting airbag cases.
          Plaintiff’s Case:
          On a Saturday evening, a Female Driver of a 1996 Ford Taurus was on her way
          home from the supermarket. The Driver was wearing her seat belt. Traveling on
          State Road 007, the Female Driver entered the entrance ramp of the Turnpike. As
          she traveled in the inside lane of the entrance ramp, the Female Driver’s
          vehicle slid on the rain dampened roadway, crossed through the outside lane, and
          ultimately collided with the outside concrete barrier. The vehicle impacted
          the wall on the right front of the vehicle at a speed of approximately 17 miles
          per hour. As a result of the crash, the driver’s side air bag deployed,
          killing the Female Driver. Damage to the vehicle from the crash was minimal.
          The Female Driver, Sally, was 29 years old at the time of the accident. She
          was a single mother and left behind her 3 ½ year old son. Sally was 5'9" and
          weighed 130 lbs, which is above average in stature. The primary cause of the
          Female Driver’s death was determined to be a lacerated vena cava (heart). She
          also suffered secondary injuries, including fractures to her right and left ribs,
          and significant bruising. It is believed that, if the air bag had not
          deployed, the Female Driver would still be alive today. Several EMT’s who responded
          to the scene of the accident reported that they were surprised that Sally died
          as a result of the crash, based on the severity of damage to the Taurus. A
          reconstruction of the crash estimated the Driver’s speed at the time of impact
          with the wall to be approximately 17 miles per hour, but because it was at an
          angle the actual impact speed adjusted for that angle, as is important for air
          bag deployment determinations, was between 7 to 10 miles per hour. Ford Motor
          Company designed the subject 1996 Ford Taurus to incorporate an air bag that,
          in frontal or angled-frontal crashes, must deploy at speeds of 14 miles per
          hour or greater, and must not deploy at speeds of 8 miles per hour or less. The
          bag "may" deploy if the accident is between 8 mph and 14 mph. The Plaintiff
          asserts that the air bag system for the 1996 Ford Taurus was defectively designed
          because it deployed in a low speed crash (i.e. below 10 mph where the female
          driver would not have been killed or seriously injured without a bag
          deployment, and that it was unreasonably dangerous to deploy an air bag with such risk
          being possible. The Plaintiff alleges that because a typical consumer would
          not expect to die as a result of a crash similar to the instant case and because
          Ford failed to set the deployment threshold at 10 mph or above, the vehicle
          was defective.


          Defendant’s Case.
          One Saturday evening, an unbelted Female Driver of a 1996 Ford Taurus was on
          her way home from the supermarket. Traveling on State Road 007, with a speed
          limit of 35 mph, under rainy weather conditions and limited visibility, the
          Female Driver entered the entrance ramp of the Turnpike at 55 mph. As she
          entered the inside lane of the entrance ramp, the Driver’s vehicle slid on the
          roadway, began to rotate in a counter clockwise manner, and crossed through the
          outside lane, and ultimately collided with the outside concrete barrier. At the
          time of the impact, the subject vehicle was traveling at a speed of 27 mph.
          Evidence markings at the accident scene revealed that the vehicle’s right front
          tire made 3 foot 11 inch scuff marks located along the concrete barrier wall.
          The right front of the vehicle then continued to scrape along the concrete
          barrier wall and came to a final rest. The Female Driver’s insurance company
          reported the vehicle damage as a total loss. Although her safety air bag deployed,
          Sally was tragically killed as a result of the accident. It is undisputed that
          the air bag was the primary cause of Sally’s death.
          Ford designs its air bags to protect occupants from serious or fatal injuries
          in frontal collisions. The impact dynamics of this crash with this 1996 Taurus
          ’s air bag system resulted in a change of velocity that was in the range the
          bag was meant to deploy (i.e. above the 8 mph "no fire" threshold set by
          Ford). In other words, when the vehicle hit the wall, the speed at the time of the
          impact was high enough to trigger the deployment of the air bag. An
          aggravating factor to the Driver’s injuries was the fact that Investigating officers
          from the law enforcement agency reported that the Female Driver was not wearing
          her seat belt at the time of the accident. Sally had a history of violating the
          law by not wearing her seatbelt. If the Driver had been wearing her seat
          belt, she would have been in the proper seating position so as to avoid the
          resulting injury from a deploying air bag. However, in this case, she came to be
          very close to the driver’s air bag when it deployed, and because she was
          "out-of-position", the force of the air bag had no where to go but into her chest
          which was just inches from the steering wheel where the bag was. In addition, at
          the time of the manufacture of the subject vehicle and its air bag system, it
          was not possible to engineer an air bag system that both met the federal
          government standards, and also avoided completely the possibility of life
          threatening injuries when the occupant is in very close proximity to a deploying air
          bag. In fact, the federal government stated that, "these deaths did not occur at
          random; they typically involved certain common factors. The persons who have
          been killed or seriously injured by an air bag were extremely close to the air
          bag at the time of deployment." Sally had to have been extremely close to the
          air bag before the crash occurred. If she had followed the car’s visor
          warning to stay "as far back as possible from the air bag", this tragedy would not
          have occurred. Finally, the 1996 Taurus utilized the state of the art
          technology that was available at the time of its manufacture for its class in the
          United States market. The air bag system in the 1996 Taurus was at the head of its
          class. The severity of this crash is representative of a typical air bag
          deployment crash. The air bag system contained in this vehicle was safe, effective
          in most collisions, and operated as designed and intended. It has saved
          thousands of lives, and while unbelted occupants who put themselves
          "out-of-position" may be at risk, the benefits in saved lives is great. Ford was not
          "negligent" in its design, and the bag was not "unreasonably" dangerous.


          Ok, any of you case sleuths want to figure out which side is right?
          all opinions a re welcome!!
          thanks for your input folks..

          Amy


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          <p><hr></p>
          To subscribe, send an empty message to <a href="mailto:infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-subscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
          To unsubscribe, send a message to <a href="mailto:infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">infoguys-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br/>
          <p><hr></p>

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.