|
Product Safety News
A $9 Safety Improvement Could Have Saved the Anderson Family from
Horrific Burns
|
The Anderson's Chevy Malibu
"The court finds that clear and convincing
evidence demonstarted that defendants' fuel tank was placed
behind the axle on automobiles of the make and model here in
order to maximize profits - to the disregard of public safety."
-- Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ernest G Williams [Wall
Street Journal, Sept. 29, 1999]
|
In 1993, while driving home from church services on Christmas Eve
in her 1979 Chevy Malibu, Patricia Anderson and her four children,
ages six to 15, were hit from behind. At the time they were approaching
a red light and traveling at only 10 mph. The front of the car of
the other driver was forced partially underneath the rear bumper and
punctured the fuel tank in several places. The leaking fuel ignited
and the car burst into flames.
Patricia and her children suffered severe burns while trapped in
the car and required years of medical attention after the accident.
Eight-year-old Kiontra was burned when, after escaping, she ran back
to the car to rescue her younger sister.
Evidence shows that GM knew for more than twenty years before the
accident that changing the placement of the fuel tank from under the
floor to over the axle would make it less likely to puncture and reduce
the risk of explosion. They could have prevented the Anderson’s
terrifying experience and the pain they suffered.
Yet, in an example of Pinto math, an internal GM memo showed that
the company estimated that deaths resulting from post-collision fuel-tank
fires cost General Motors $2.40 per car. This calculation was based
on an estimate that each life “has a value of $200,000.”
Internal memos also showed that the company had developed an improved
design that would do a better job of protecting the gas tank in collisions.
Improving the design would cost the company $8.59 per car. Executives
decided not to do so.
In 1999, a jury found that General Motors Corp., in an effort to
cut costs, knowingly endangered the lives of their passengers and
then ordered the company to pay compensations costs to Patricia and
her children.
The timeline of the Malibu’s history shows GM’s disregard
for passenger safety in favor of profits.
1966: In the original designing of the Malibu, GM violates its own
corporate policy that required engineers to pay careful attention
to eliminating or shielding the fuel tank from punctures.
1970: The government issues a new proposed standard concerning crash
standards for automobiles. In response, GM directs that all future
designs, starting with the 1973 models, have the over axle fuel tank
design instead of the under floor design.
Yet, when GM realizes that this directive would cost more, they
begin a campaign against the standards and look for ways to meet government
standards while still keeping the fuel tank system in the unsafe location.
1973: A GM engineer writes an internal memo – later known as
“The Ivey Memo” – that calculates the cost to GM of
deaths resulting from post-collision fuel-tank fires. The engineer
calculates that the cost to the company was $2.40 per car, based on
the estimate that each life “has a value of $200,000.”
1977: GM’s own testing reveals the Malibu fuel tank leaks on
rear impact, even in a 30mph rear-moving barrier test. This included
the wagon models that leaked nearly 50 percent of the time. Yet, despite
having this information GM continued with the under floor design.
1977: GM certifies to the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration that the Malibu meets government standards and is ready
for production. However, after that, the car failed or leaked fuel
during twenty-one crash tests.
1978: Lloyd Aldrich, a GM fuel system engineer, recommends three
areas where the fuel system could be improved and the leakage problems
fixed.
1979: Malibu is put on the market with none of Aldrich's proposed
fixes.
1981: The Ivey memo along with other GM documents are found for the
first time in a brown-paper wrapper on engineering analyst Ronald
Elwell's desk. Elwell becomes first person to testify he saw the memo
in 1981, gave it to a lawyer for GM and also showed it to a fellow
GM employee.
1983: In another unrelated case, (Swanic v. GM), GM is ordered to
produce all cost-benefit studies, including the Ivey memo.
1993: The Anderson family is hit from behind while driving home from
Christmas Eve services. Their car bursts into flames and mother and
four children are severely burned.
1999: A jury finds that GM, in an effort to cut costs, knowingly
endangered the lives of their passengers and ordered the company to
pay compensation costs to the Anderson family.
(Respondent's Brief, CA Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate
District, Case No. B135147)
March 2006
|
