THE LONG ROAD TO AUTOMOTIVE SAFETY

By Edward M. Ricci, Esq.
Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.

Introduction

The recent controversy over full-sized General Motors pickup trucks manufactured from 1973 through 1987 highlights a major change in public attitude toward automotive crashworthiness. After 12 years of federal inaction, America is finally experiencing a re-awakening of safety consciousness. The change is refreshing.

In Larson v. General Motors Corporation, 391 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1968), the doctrine of crashworthiness was first articulated in the common law. By December 1992 every state had adopted Larson. Manufacturers do have a duty to responsibly foresee the kinds of crashes in which their products will be involved and to provide reasonable safety to occupants in foreseeable collisions.

From the advent of the motor vehicle until as recently as 1990, the Departments of Transportation of most states viewed motor vehicle collisions as an inevitable fact of life. Today, however, many states have formally rejected the use of the word "accident" and consciously adopted the word "crash" as the operative term for vehicle collisions. The change is not semantic. Rather, it reflects a significantly heightened awareness that crashes can be reduced in number and severity by proper design, construction and maintenance of highways, and by manufacturers' incorporation of state-of-the-art technology. This technology includes collision avoidance systems such as ABS brakes, radial tires and halogen head lamps, and crash protection features such as air bags, properly designed seats and seat belts, laminated window glass, side-intrusion protection and well designed fuel systems.

Awareness of safety and technological advances can have a dramatic effect on saving lives. According to the National Safety Council, motor vehicle crashes still account for approximately 43,500 deaths and 1.6 million disabling injuries annually. The direct annual cost of crashes is about $96.1 billion.1

This article reviews the battles that have been fought with the auto industry over occupant safety, and concludes that the battle is far from over. Many important areas of automotive safety remain to be addressed, including the risks posed by light trucks and utility vehicles, poorly designed seat backs, and the widespread existence of lap-only seat belts in the rear seats of millions of automobiles. Although much has been accomplished, many important battles must be fought and won by American consumers before an acceptable level of safety is reached in the design of motor vehicles.
Back to top

Auto Safety: A Brief History

Public debate over auto safety did not begin until the mid 1960s, when Ralph Nader's Unsafe At Any Speed -- the Silent Spring of auto safety -- catapulted the issue to the forefront of public attention.

In Unsafe At Any Speed, the public learned for the first time of the auto industry's total disregard for the issue of safety in the design of the popular -- but lethal -- Chevrolet Corvair.

As Nader brought auto safety issues into the public's consciousness, Congress began highly publicized hearings on auto safety. These hearings eventually led to the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Highway Safety Act of 1966.

For the first time, these two laws called for the regulation of the transportation industry and the development and enforcement of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

The battle for improved crashworthiness moved to the courts in the 1970s. Accident victims fought for improved crashworthiness by suing manufacturers for injuries and deaths that would not have occurred if the vehicles involved had been properly designed, engineered and manufactured.

The courts recognized during this battle that manufacturers were in the best position to know the inherent dangers associated with accidents and how best to protect vehicle occupants. Many lawsuits revealed the incredible fact that certain manufacturers had the technology available to produce a safer vehicle. But because of slightly higher costs and the fact that it was not required by law, the manufacturers chose to maximize their profits rather than incorporate safety technology in production vehicles.