Supplier Spotlight

Show Reviews

Automotive Testing Expo Novi 2017 Show Review

Click here to read

 

Automotive Testing Expo Europe 2017 Show Review

Click here to read

 

Automotive Testing Expo Europe 2016 Show Review

Click here to read

 

Automotive Testing Expo Europe 2015 Show Review

Click here to read

 

Automotive Testing Expo North America 2014 Show Review

Click here to read

 

Latest Video


Groupe Renault reveals Symbioz prototype

LV

Symbioz features Level 4 automation and will be used by Renault to test and develop autonomous vehicle functions and technologies

Click here to watch the video


TRI's next-gen automated research vehicle

LV

Engineers explain their goals for Platform 3.0, which included to radically increase the car's sensor capabilities

Click here to watch the video


Will dynamic watermarks be the solution to cyber attack threats on autonomous vehicles?

Industry Opinion

« back to blog listings

The doctrine of crashworthiness

My previous column was, even by my own standards, something of a despondent rant. It was about how regulations and standards are helpful design parameters, but risk outranks them both. The risk here is real-world events – or accidents as plaintiffs like to call them. And it was about how, if the accident happens in the USA, the vehicle involved will be subjected to a crashworthiness test. This situation is not without irony. Consider this. At the embryo stage, the integrity of the design and build are subjected to a crashworthiness test performed by competent, experienced engineers in a controlled environment. But then, post-accident, the same test is carried out by a jury who are incompetent, inexperienced and in an uncontrolled environment. This doesn’t always end well.

In 1968 General Motors was sued by a plaintiff called Larsen. The US court decided that accidents are foreseeable to OEMs, so cars must be made crashworthy and any injuries caused by the lack of crashworthiness must be compensated for by the OEM. This is regardless of the cause of the accident itself. And it even applies in ‘pilot error’ cases, where the root cause and the victim are one and the same. This judgment equated GM to a safety guarantor.

Time, then, to deploy a word I never thought I’d use in this column: jurisprudence. This very grand term simply means legal theory. Since the 1920s, US jurisprudence has been curated as legal theory in books called ‘restatements’. These are so called because each series displaces the last one. Imagine a suite of test protocols, only written by judges for judges – if you get one of these, apply this test. In the late 1980s the third restatement replaced the second one and, by all accounts, it was quite an overhaul. It also dealt a catastrophic blow to OEMs selling products in the USA. It adopted the crashworthiness test from the GM case. And just like that, a test was set for the coming decades. It’s an understatement to say this was a stick for plaintiff’s lawyers to beat OEMs with. It was an assault rifle.

But then, in 2014, came a glimpse of hope for car makers in the USA. In the case of Tincher v. Omega Flex, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided not to adopt the third restatement on product liability law. My firm’s head office is in Philadelphia, so I have an inside perspective on the impression this made on the legal community. It was stunned confusion.

It left me and many of my peers wondering whether this meant that OEMs could now defend claims in the USA just as they could defend them anywhere else in the world. The answer hasn’t exactly proved to be straightforward. For now, in Pennsylvania at least, a plaintiff has two ways to demonstrate that a car is defective. Out goes the crashworthiness test and in comes the ‘consumer expectations’ test and the ‘risk-utility’ test. In the former, a car is deemed defective if it is proved to be more dangerous than a reasonable consumer would expect. In the latter, a car is deemed defective if the chances of harm are proved to outweigh the utility.

Whatever you make of these tests, they seem far better than the crashworthiness test. Honda certainly thinks so. Last year, in a case called Martinez, the OEM set about trying to overturn an award of some US$50m on the basis that the judge had given the jury the wrong instructions by telling them to examine crashworthiness. So, not just pilot error, you could say, but judge error.

August 23, 2017

 

Comments:

There are currently no comments.

If you would like to post a comment about this blog, please click here.
Read Latest Issue

Read Latest Issue
RECEIVE THE
LATEST NEWS


Your email address:



Web Exclusives

Keep it on the hush

Volvo uses LMS Test.Lab software to better understand the source of noise emissions
Click here to read more



Improved leakage testing

New technology from Sensing Precision helps reduce potential bottlenecks in production associated with cabin leakage testing
Click here to read more



Ford's plans to return home

Key autonomous and electric vehicle business and strategy teams are be moved to the city where the Blue Oval began its life
Click here to read more



Safer analysis of onboard chargers

How Keysight's compact, two-quadrant, regenerative power converter test solution with integrated safety features accelerates test time, and protects both users and devices under test
Click here to read more



SEAT uses HBM autonomous DAQ system

SEAT and Polytechnic University of Catalonia (BarcelonaTech) have jointly developed a unique data acquisition enabling more precise control over instrumented parts and the entire data acquisition process  
Click here to read more




Supplier Spotlight

Supplier SpotlightClick here for listings and information on leading suppliers covering all aspects of the automotive testing industry. Want to see your company included? Contact jason.sullivan@ukimediaevents.com for more details.

Submit your industry opinion

Industry BlogDo you have an opinion you'd like to share with the automotive testing community? Good or bad, we'd like to hear your views and opinions on the leading issues shaping the industry. Share your comments by sending up to 500 words to john.thornton@ukimediaevents.com

Advertising

Recruitment AdTo receive information on booking an advertising banner please email jason.sullivan@ukimediaevents.com