Fires that result from accidents are horrible, tragic events. And a statistically-based defense does not have any emotional appeal.
Ralph Nader and the Center for Auto Safety are calling on Chrysler to recall 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee models because they are, allegedly, defective and subject to fires during rear-end collisions.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has opened an investigation into the claims, and of course Chrysler is cooperating, as required by U.S. safety regulations.
What’s unusual in the normally silent world of corporate product liability lawyers is the public response of Chrysler. Chrysler is vehemently – and publicly – refuting the allegations.
Normally, communications departments are held silent in the face of media reporting allegations by critics about safety matters. Corporate product liability lawyers, playing defense, insist the charges be tried in court, not the media, where rules of evidence apply and cross examinations are allowed – both legal safeguards that are notably absent during the workings of a press corps that is sometimes interested in a “gotcha” game, before moving on the next controversy.
So common communication practices include a bland “we are cooperating statement,” along with “we take safety seriously.” No further comment is then given, since the matter is subject to possible or pending or actual litigation. Often this is interpreted as a cover-up by those predisposed to think that all auto companies are bad.
Well, it’s not happening this time, at least so far.
“Chrysler has concluded that 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles are neither defective, nor do their fuel systems pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety in rear impact collisions. As such, Chrysler believes this investigation should be closed,” the company says in a web posting.
“The 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee meets or exceeds all applicable federal safety standards and has and excellent safety record with more than 300 billion vehicle miles driven,” Chrysler concluded.
At the heart of the matter are these allegations from CAS:
“Unlike the earlier Jeep Cherokee, the fuel tank of the Grand Cherokee is plastic and extends below the rear bumper so there is nothing to protect the tank from a direct hit in a rollover or by a vehicle with a low front profile or one lowered by pre-impact braking.
“The design is so bad that Chrysler frequently settles lawsuits without extensive discovery and subject to confidentiality agreements. A search of NHTSA’s FARS files for fatal fire crashes where there was a fire occurrence in a 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee from calendar year 1992 through 2008 found 172 fatal fire crashes with 254 fatalities. With an additional known fatal fire crash in 2009, there have been at least 44 crashes with 64 fatalities where the Most Harmful Event is fire.
“In comparison, NHTSA reported a total of 38 fire crashes involving only 26 fire deaths in the Ford Pinto when it issued its initial defect report in May 1978,” CAS said in a letter to NHTSA.
In complying with NHTSA information request, Chrysler looked at publically-available data on more than 21,000 rear impact accidents involving 1993-2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles.
Chrysler concludes:
1. Rear impacts resulting in a fire are extremely rare.
2. Rear impacts resulting in a fire occur no more often in 1993 – 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles than in peer vehicles.
3. The 1993 – 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles are at no greater risk of exposure to fire in rear end collisions than peer vehicles.
The Chrysler response is here: http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/docservlet/Artemis/Public/Pursuits/2010/PE/INRL-PE10031-43420P.pdf
How this all plays out remains to be seen. Fires that result from accidents are horrible, tragic events. And a statistically-based defense does not have any emotional appeal. But it is data that needs to be considered by safety regulators.
There are more players here than meets the eye. The plaintiff’s bar has been trying to make a case against plastic fuel tanks ever since they were introduced years ago. Naturally, the Tier One (blow-molders) and Tier Two (plastic or chemical companies) suppliers of those tanks are on the hook, too. It’s just another example of the runaway lawsuit syndrome.
The usual other allegation by the ambulance chasers is that a tank behind the rear-axle of a rear-drive vehicle is a dangerous location–blandly ignoring the fact that any other location is worse, like in the rear passenger compartment separated only by seat upholstery.
The ignorant mass media and politicians are suckers for these half-truth or no-truth allegations by the plaintiff bar and their inside-the-beltway allies like CFAS.
Kudos to Chrysler for having the guts to challenge them!