OVERVIEW OF SEATBACK LITIGATION

While there are a variety of components designed to protect occupants in frontal accidents, an occupant’s seatback is frequently the only component that will prevent harmful contact inside and outside of a vehicle during a rear impact accident. Despite knowledge of the important role seatbacks play in protecting occupants in rear impact accidents, multiple studies have shown that a large percentage of front seats selected by domestic manufacturers catastrophically fail rearward in rear impact accidents with a relative change in velocity (or Delta V) of 10 m.p.h. or higher.

When a seatback fails to remain upright, such a failure routinely leads to the partial or complete ejection of a properly belted occupant and substantial intrusion of the seatback into the survival area necessary for rear seated occupants. In addition to these dangerous scenarios, collapsing seatbacks can cause: (1) the driver to lose the ability to control his or her vehicle; (2) injury to the driver’s neck or spinal cord; (3) injury to a rear seated passenger’s head, chest or internal organs; and (4) reduced egress capabilities for rear seated passengers in the event of a post accident hazard such as a fire. While all of these situations are extremely dangerous, over the past several years some of the most tragic cases we have handled involved injuries sustained by young children seated behind a seatback that collapsed or paralyzing injuries sustained by the person who occupied the collapsed seat.

In recent years, poor seatback performance has prompted numerous automotive engineers and biomechanical experts to publish articles discussing the need for stronger seatback components. This in turn has spurred consumer advocates to prosecute seatback failure cases. In seatback cases, plaintiffs’ theory is traditionally that the seat selected by the defendant manufacturer was designed and manufactured with insufficient structural integrity to remain upright during a foreseeable rear impact accident. This theory involves a detailed analysis of all structural components of the seat including, but not limited to, the seatback recliner, seatback to seat pan connection, the seat pan, the seat track adjustors, the seat risers, and the seat pan. Unfortunately, when any one of these components deforms or breaks it can cause the seatback to extend beyond its intended design angle.

This month’s article highlights some issues that should be considered and addressed by a consumer attorney who is charged with the responsibility of evaluating claims arising out of an accident in which a seatback collapsed. First, this article discusses certain information that must be gathered and funneled to the attorney’s expert of choice. Second, this article discusses various issues that must be evaluated and understood once the decision has been made to prosecute the case with regard to theories of the case and what the manufacturer’s defenses will likely be.

What Your Expert Will Need to Evaluate the Case:

As with all potential products liability cases, it is imperative that appropriate steps be taken to document and preserve all evidence. Once the accident scene evidence has been properly documented and the vehicles have been preserved, the most important question that will need to be answered to evaluate a potential case is: What amount of force was exerted on the seatback during the accident? In order for a trained expert to make this determination, the following information will need to be gathered:

1. ___ Vehicle Information: Make, Model and Vehicle Identification Number for the subject vehicle.
2. ___ Vehicle Dynamics: Did the investigating officer estimate the vehicle speed before the point of impact? Is there eyewitness testimony regarding the speed the vehicle was traveling at the point of impact? If the subject vehicle was stopped prior to impact, does the driver remember if the vehicle was rolling or the brake was fully depressed? Ultimately an accident reconstructionist will be needed to evaluate the accident scene evidence and corresponding crush damage to calculate, among other things, the Delta V of the subject vehicle, the resultant crash pulse duration on the subject vehicle, the sustained G’s in the accident and principal direction of force (PDOF) during the accident.
3. ___ Size of Occupants: The height and weight of all occupants within the subject vehicle.
4. ___ Belt Use: Was the occupant seated in the subject seat properly belted? Was the occupant who was injured by the seatback properly belted?
5. ___ Injuries: Medical records will need to be compiled for both the occupant seated in and directly behind the seatback in question. It is also helpful to gather the medical records for all other occupants involved in the accident to assess the severity of the accident as a whole.

Once this information has been gathered, it should be passed on to an expert with experience evaluating seatback failures. Careful consideration should be made to ensure the proper expert is selected. You will want to identify an expert with experience evaluating not only the seat in question, but also other seats manufactured by the potential defendant. Assuming your selected expert agrees that the subject seatback should have remained upright during the particular accident at issue, it is important to know what arguments the defense will likely make.

Defense Arguments:

Based on past experience, we have noticed that, other than the standard “hell of a wreck” argument seen in most crashworthiness cases, auto manufacturers typically raise similar, if not identical, defenses in most seatback cases. The stock seatback defenses we see usually fall into the following three categories: (1) compliance with the federal seatback standard; (2) yielding seatbacks are safer than stiff or rigid seatbacks; and (3) the occupant was simply too big.

1. Compliance with Governmental Standard:

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 207 is the minimum performance requirement enacted by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration that addresses seatback strength. This standard merely requires that the seatback portion of the seatback be capable of withstanding 20 times the weight of the empty seat and remain upright when 3,300 inch-pounds (373 newton meters) of force are applied to the seatback in a rearward direction. See 49 C.F.R. 571.207.

While most manufacturers admit FMVSS 207 requires inadequate seat strength, the inadequacy of this minimal standard is readily apparent when you consider the fact that a “lawn chair” tested by the national television program Dateline in 1995 exceeded the requirements of FMVSS 207.

The result of this concession is that auto manufacturers end up comparing the performance of their weak seatbacks to the requirements of FMVSS 207 in an attempt to convince the jury that their seatbacks actually are strong. This argument is best met with evidence showing that the strength of the subject seat is substantially less than the strength of seats incorporated in other vehicles sold by the same defendant. One example of this is the large disparity between the strength of the front seats incorporated into Chrysler’s 1996 Town and Country versus the much stronger belt-integrated seat installed in its 1996 Sebring. Numerous tests have shown that the Sebring’s seat is more than four (4) times as strong as the Town and Country’s seat and capable of withstanding more than 30,000 inch pounds of force.

All-in-all, this defense can be effectively dealt with assuming the proper expert has been selected and all the necessary testing has been completed.

2. Yielding v. Rigid or Stiff Seatbacks:

In litigation, consumer advocates take the position that stronger seats are required to adequately protect consumers in rear impact accidents. Manufacturers, on the other hand, take the position that seats should be designed to “yield” or absorb energy, which they contend prevents the transfer of potentially harmful energy to the seat occupant, especially when the occupant is out of position.

In response to claims that seatbacks should be stronger, manufacturers contend that the yielding versus stiff seatback debate is simply an honest difference of engineering opinion between two valid schools of design. This contention, however, is not substantiated with any internal guidelines or industry standard that sets forth the forces under which the seatback should yield, how much the seatback should yield or what size occupant should cause the seat to yield. In fact, an analysis of information disclosed by domestic manufacturers in discovery suggests that the yielding defense was manufactured after the fact in an attempt to justify the use of seats that collapse rearward.

To justify their designed-to-yield position, manufacturers claim that non-collapsing seats pose several dangers, including: (1) the ramping of unbelted occupants up the seat and into overhead structures causing compression neck loads; (2) severe hyperextension neck injuries to out of position occupants (i.e. occupant’s head is outside the headrest); (3) forward rebound and possible ejection of unbelted occupants who load the stronger seatback and then propel forward into the windshield and dash area; and (4) injury to unrestrained rear seated passengers in frontal accidents when they come into contact with stiffer seatbacks.

The foundation of these justifications is that plaintiffs are advocating for rigid seatbacks that will not absorb any energy during a rear impact accident, which is a blatant mischaracterization. To the contrary, plaintiffs merely advocate for seatbacks that will both absorb energy and remain upright during foreseeable rear impact accident. Even though plaintiffs are not advocating for completely rigid seatbacks, the manufacturers’ criticisms of stronger seatbacks are without merit considering the back seats of sedans and front seats of many domestic pickups and sports cars. These seats are oftentimes supported by structural components that prevent them from yielding at all. Accordingly, to the extent manufacturers argue that plaintiff’s alternative seat design is unreasonably dangerous, they have a hard time explaining how their own seats in other vehicle are not likewise unreasonably dangerous.

Moreover, the decision of some manufacturers to use the All-Belts-To-Seat (“ABTS”) design effectively guts a number of arguments against stronger seats. The seatbelts for ABTS seats are mounted directly to the seat frame rather than to the vehicle’s floor pan and B-pillar. Consequently, these seats are extremely strong and capable of resisting rearward loads in the 40,000 to 50,000 inch pound range. As such, these seats are far stronger than most alternative seat designs proposed by plaintiffs, which makes is difficult for the defendant manufacturer to take the position that stronger seats are more dangerous than those that yield.

The fact of the matter is, experts who advocate for stiffer seatbacks have conducted numerous studies showing that stiff seats, which more directly load the occupant’s torso and substantially resist rearward movement of the seatback in severe rear impacts, provide equivalent or better occupant protection to those that yield.

While there is a large quantity of literature on both sides of this argument, the best course of action is to take the position that regardless of whether a yielding or stiff seatback is chosen, under no circumstance should a seatback be designed to completely collapse in an accident. This argument is particularly persuasive when discovery unveils evidence that seat design decisions were made solely to protect or prevent injuries to the individual who occupies the seat and due consideration was not given to the safety of those seated behind the seat.

3. The Occupant was Too Big:

Another defense argument we have seen in recent years is that the seatback failed merely because the occupant weighed too much. In support of this argument defendants take the position that all that is required is that the seat be capable of remaining upright when the seat is occupied by an average or 50th percentile male. Unfortunately for the growing number of obese consumers, the 50th percentile male only weighs 167-175 pounds.

In theory this may be a reasonable defense. However, we find it difficult to believe that any lawyer would be comfortable making this argument in front of a jury undoubtedly made up of both men and women who weigh over 175 pounds. Nonetheless, in order to meet this defense head-on it is wise to identify alternative seats that would have remained upright even if occupied by a heavier occupant like your client.

In recent years some of the largest verdicts in the products area have involved some form of a seatback failure. As a result, auto manufacturers have become more and more sophisticated in this area and are determined to try these cases. Accordingly, plaintiff’s counsel must be prepared for the long haul and spend all the necessary resources to present the best possible case to the jury at trial.