For The Defense, November 2012 - DRI Today

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Product Liability • low static stability factor (SSF); • inadequate rollover resistance; or • inadequate occupant protection. Low Static Stability Factor (SSF) Opposing experts, at times, may compare ROV static characteristics to on-road passenger vehicle safety metrics. For example, they might claim that an ROV is Today,appropriate dedicated equipment exists that can be used to recreate real-world motions in an ROV in a laboratory environment. Tests such as these can be used to quantify and comprehend the performance of the restraint systems better. flawed because its static stability factor (SSF)—a vehicle’s center of gravity (CG) height divided by one-half of its track width—is too low. In reality, most ROVs have a lower SSF than on-road passenger vehicles. The function and utility of ROVs and on-road passenger vehicles are quite different and, therefore, comparing their static safety metrics, such as SSF, is not justifiable. Correctly determining a vehicle’s CG height to calculate its SSF is no trivial task. There are numerous opportunities for error, and simplifying assumptions can lead to incorrect results. Yet, to address claims made against a vehicle’s CG height and SSF properly, it is necessary to have accurate measurements. With appropriate equipment and adherence to proper techniques, it is possible to measure the effect that certain design parameters may have 74 ■ For The Defense ■ November 2012 on an ROV’s CG height, SSF, and inertia properties. This includes, but is not limited to, the installation of tires not recommended by the manufacturer, applying tire pressures counter to what is prescribed, or exceeding the manufacturer’s limits for occupant and cargo loading. Inadequate Rollover Resistance Cases against ROV manufacturers may also involve claims that the vehicles do not have adequate rollover resistance based on their performance during severe driving maneuvers. Allegations that an ROV is flawed because it tips up at lateral accelerations below those necessary to tip up an on-road passenger vehicle suffer from the same lack of foundation as the low SSF claims. The two different vehicle classes have significant differences in their function and utility. Therefore, it is imperative to know the limits of a specific ROV’s capabilities during maneuvers that take it to the threshold of tipping up, and as importantly, to know what type of driver inputs are necessary to do so. Equipping an ROV with test instrumentation and “putting it through its paces” in a suite of dynamic field tests can answer the necessary questions regarding its overall lateral stability and rollover resistance. More importantly, dynamic field- testing can be used to demonstrate the magnitude of driver inputs, such as the vehicle speed and steering requirements necessary to take the vehicle up to its limits of response. This knowledge is useful in gauging the inherent margin of safety that a vehicle has under various driver conditions, including while being driven on various offroad terrains. Further, this information can be helpful to address how a vehicle responds under driver inputs that might be made by an alert, responsible, and prudent driver, as well as indicate what types and ranges of driver inputs are necessary to cause or to contribute to a particular accident. Finally, data obtained can be applied to address differences between ROVs and on-road vehicles. Inadequate Occupant Protection Sometimes lawsuits against ROV manufacturers involve assertions that the vehicles do not have adequate occupant restraint systems. Allegations may posit that ROV original equipment manufacturer (OEM) seat belts, hip and shoulder restraints, doors and nets, or a combination of these are inadequate or defective, and plaintiffs allege that they can show “redesigns” that could have prevented the injuries from occurring. Often the allegations and the “redesigns” are not based on facts supported by physics or by rigorous biomechanical evaluation. Clearly, the foremost issue to evaluate is whether or not the restraint system was present and properly used at the time of an accident. It is necessary to have a sound understanding of the safety benefits and characteristics, as well as the limits, of each restraint and occupant protection component on the ROV. Even more beneficial is knowing how the elements work together to provide overall occupant protection and thereby prevent injury. The translational and rotational forces that act on an ROV and its occupants before and during an accident lead to very complex vehicle and occupant motions, displacements, velocities, and accelerations. For example, in most ROV rollover situations, it is not sufficient simply to test or model the vehicle and occupant as they might respond during a “pure roll” motion; most rollovers involve important components of longitudinal and lateral accelerations and motions as well. Studies of three- dimensional states of motion and forces are required to evaluate occupant restraint systems properly. Tipping (rolling) a vehicle at 45 degrees, or to any other quasi- static angle for that matter, without any longitudinal or lateral acceleration, is not adequate to determine how well a restraint system works during an accident scenario. Doing so may result in misleading conclusions. Today, appropriate dedicated equipment exists that can be used to recreate real-world motions in an ROV in a laboratory environment. Tests such as these can be used to quantify and comprehend the performance of the restraint systems better. Being armed with reliable and scientifically valid information on how restraint systems actually work in real-world rollover events can be the backbone of a strong defense against opinions based on inaccurate theories or science.
Science is a verb. While S-E-A has an incredibly well-educated staff, our work is anything but academic. We apply our disciplines to the real world. The world where hands get dirty. The world where things break, burn, collapse and collide. In the real world, the answers to what happened are often hidden in a maze of twisted metal. Or buried in a mountain of dust and debris. They may be concealed in a heap of smoldering ashes or lying in the dark on the ocean’s floor. The answer is there for those who know where to look and have the ability to recognize what they see. This requires objectivity along with equal parts of expertise, experience and open-mindedness. Qualities we, at S-E-A, demand from everyone placed on an assignment, whatever their degree or title. After the team reveals the cause, they are also quite capable of explaining the facts to the layman, in clear concise verbiage and demonstrations that have been an exceedingly useful tool in courtrooms across the country for more than 40 years. Visit www.SEAlimited.com or call Jason Baker at 800-782-6851 for more details. Scientific Expert Analysis © 2012
Page 3 and 4:
On The Record Embracing the Process
Page 6 and 7:
DRI Services 55 West Monroe Street
Page 8 and 9:
DRI News On The Record, from page 1
Page 10 and 11:
Alabama Affiliates in Action IDCA H
Page 12 and 13:
The Civil Justice System DRI’s Ju
Page 14 and 15:
The Civil Justice System A trial by
Page 16 and 17:
The Civil Justice System covery und
Page 18 and 19:
Medical Liability and Health Care L
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Drug and Medical Device Fitting a R
Page 26 and 27: Drug and Medical Device While the F
Page 28 and 29: Drug and Medical Device receive the
Page 30 and 31: Product Liability From the Chair Ma
Page 32 and 33: Product Liability Asbestos Litigati
Page 34 and 35: Product Liability ation exceptions
Page 36 and 37: Product Liability Corporate defenda
Page 38 and 39: Product Liability Once the notice l
Page 40 and 41: Product Liability nating a former e
Page 42 and 43: Product Liability Because you do no
Page 44 and 45: Product Liability Something for Not
Page 46 and 47: Product Liability bers without a do
Page 48 and 49: Product Liability Conscious Pain an
Page 50 and 51: Product Liability of their experts
Page 52 and 53: Product Liability A Waivable Defect
Page 54 and 55: Product Liability been filed in fed
Page 56 and 57: Product Liability If a forum defend
Page 58 and 59: Product Liability Warnings and Inst
Page 60 and 61: Product Liability probability (“w
Page 62 and 63: Product Liability the OEM assumes t
Page 64 and 65: Product Liability The CDC Opens Pan
Page 66 and 67: Product Liability exposure had decr
Page 68 and 69: Product Liability 2.0 Is a Magic Nu
Page 70 and 71: Product Liability expert’s testim
Page 72 and 73: Product Liability people who have t
Page 74 and 75: Product Liability risk.” Again,
Page 78 and 79: Writers’ Corner Let’s Try This
Page 80 and 81: Think Globally Another Step Forward
Page 82 and 83: Successor, from page 34 vide some i
Page 84 and 85: son, 535 U.S. at 375. Furthermore,
Page 86 and 87: New Members Arizona John L. Condrey
Page 88: SAVE THE DATE Product Liability Con
show all

For The Defense, November 2012 - DRI Today

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?