John R. Yannaccone, P.E., Principal Mechanical Engineer

Case Summary: Late one night a family of three traveling southbound on a highway approached an interchange where two interstates merged. A westbound tanker truck was merging onto the southbound highway. While accounts vary, the right side of the tanker and the left side of the passenger vehicle came in contact.

According to the passenger vehicle’s driver, the truck encroached into her lane and contacted the driver’s side of her vehicle. The truck driver stated he maintained his lane and did not see the other vehicle until he saw the flash of the headlights in his passenger side rear-view mirror, at which point he realized there was a vehicle rolling over in the lane to his right.

The passenger vehicle came to rest in the righthand southbound lane. The driver and front seat occupant were able to self-extricate from the vehicle, with only minor injuries. The rear-seat occupant was trapped in the vehicle, with extensive external injuries to her legs.

The police report indicated that the front-seat occupants were wearing their seat belts, and the rear-seat occupant was lying down, asleep at the time of the crash.

Expert Analysis: Photographs of the passenger vehicle revealed damage consistent with the reported contact between the two vehicles and the subsequent rollover. While there was significant intrusion of the roof, this was limited to the forward portion of the driver’s space. The rear-seat space was well preserved without any significant intrusion.

The rear-seat occupant confirmed she was wearing a seatbelt, which she then took off to lie down and sleep. Her medical records and photographs of her injuries showed severe “road rash” with embedded glass and road debris, consistent with her legs being outside of the vehicle during the rollover.

Given the testimony and physical evidence, a seat belt defense (SBD) was proffered against the rear-seat occupant. The rear-seat occupant had a seat belt available to her, which she verified was functional, given that she was using it earlier that night. She also admitted to being un-belted at the time of the crash. Given the lack of intrusion, coupled with the front-seat occupants being belted and well-protected, it was expected that the rear-seat occupant would have been well-protected in this crash had she been sitting up and properly seat belted. Furthermore, due to limited space in the rear seat, it would be extremely difficult for a seat belted occupant to get their legs out of the vehicle during this rollover, thus preventing the injuries to her legs.

Result: The case went to trial and ended with favorable verdict for the trucking company and their driver.  

Another interesting fact about this case is that the crash occurred in a state where seat belt use is not admissible, however; Plaintiff’s attorney filed in Plaintiff’s home state, where seat belt use is not only admissible but can be used to show that lack of seat belt use contributed to the severity of the injuries and can be used to reduce the damages a plaintiff can recover.  While Plaintiff’s attorney argued in pre-trial motions that the laws of the state where the crash occurred should apply, the trial judge indicated if the attorney wanted the laws of that state, they should have filed the case in that state.

John R. Yannaccone, P.E., Principal Mechanical Engineer with DJS Associates, Inc., can be reached via email at experts@forensicDJS.com or via phone at 215-659-2010.

Categories: Case Studies | Engineering

Tags: Occupant Restraint System | Seat Belt Defense | Vehicle Rollover