Builders: Be Upright and Fix SUV Rollovers

Elizabeth Livingston inadvertently drove her Isuzu Trooper II off the road near Bozeman, Mont., in August 1989. When she attempted to drive back onto the roadway, the vehicle rolled and she was ejected, suffering a fracture that rendered her paraplegic.

Livingston brought a products liability action against the vehicle's manufacturer. After an eight-day trial in the U.S. District Court in Montana in 1995, a jury rendered a $2.1 million verdict. Livingston v. Isuzu Motors, Ltd., 910 F.Supp. 1473 (D.Mont.1995). Later, the matter settled for a confidential amount.

At trial, the district court held that the plaintiff was allowed to introduce a variety of evidence demonstrating the propensity of the car to roll over - from videotapes depicting rollovers of similar sport utility vehicles (SUVs), to computer-generated simulations of the accident itself, to the manufacturer's advertisements over a period of time that demonstrated, not necessarily the plaintiff's reliance upon the ads, but the manufacturer's foreseeability of the use of the product. Here, that meant Livingston's maneuvering of the vehicle.

There's no doubt about the surge in popularity of the SUV. But there's also no doubt that these cars are a hazard on the road, as confirmed earlier this year in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) first study that links the rollover hazard to the SUV's weight and frame.

This finding led the NHTSA to propose new strongly worded labels for these vehicles that carry a wheelbase narrower than 110 inches. If the labels are approved, potential buyers will be warned of such a car's high risk of rollovers. The agency proposal, if approved, would apply to most sport utilities, including the popular models such as the Chevy Blazer and Chrysler Jeep Grand Cherokee, the earliest starting with the 1999 models.

The NHTSA reports that the rollover rate for these vehicles is more than double that of other vehicles (98 rollovers for each million vehicles compared to 47 rollovers for each million vehicles). Safety experts attribute the problem to the vehicles' design, which has a higher center of gravity and a higher ground clearance for off-road use.

This unique design is cause for alarm even for other drivers on the road. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a study in February of this year that found car passengers were 27 times more likely to die if they were hit broadside by a light truck or SUV than the driver of the larger vehicle. The frames and bumpers of these vehicles are six to eight inches higher than an average car, which means in a head-on collision, the bumper hits a car at just under the windshield level. In a side-impact collision, it hits a relatively delicate area of the automobile. Add to that the car's weighing less than 2,500 pounds, and the relative fatality risk jumps to 47-to-1, according to the Insurance Institute's findings.

But try telling that to the soccer moms who clamor for these light trucks. Smitten with all the glitzy advertising - including basketball superstar Michael Jordan asking a fan to step away from his SUV - are buyers really aware of the tendency to roll over in certain situations or to be more dangerous to other drivers as well as their own occupants?

These vehicles are not considered passenger automobiles, and, therefore, are exempt from compliance with passenger motor vehicle safety standards, although they are marketed primarily as passenger cars.

How many times has the nightly news shown these deadly scenes - collisions with the sport utility frame in a passenger car's seat, a roof crushed in, passengers ejected, windows popped out. Why aren't the manufacturers of these vehicles making them safer? Part of the allure of the vehicle is that they appear to be safer than they really are.

No suggestions appear to be immediately forthcoming as to how to correct the problem. Generally, allegations in rollover accident lawsuits are aimed at the vehicle's faulty design; but could it be a case of the manufacturers continuing to rack up hefty profits at the expense of changing a good thing for them?

Rather than try to alleviate the problem, some car manufacturers are taking the offensive. Suzuki Motor Corp., for instance, sued the publisher of Consumer Reports in 1996 for libel, product disparagement and violations of California's Business and Professional Code after the magazine republished a report of the consumer watchdog group, Consumers Union, which called the Suzuki Samurai unsafe.

In Illinois the Suzuki Samurai was the target of a class action lawsuit following the publication of this report, which said that the vehicle had an excessive risk of rolling over during sharp turns and accident avoidance maneuvers. The Supreme Court of Illinois found the case significant in that the plaintiffs did not suffer a rollover accident, but, rather, sought compensation for the diminution in the vehicle's resale value due to the perceived safety risk.

Although plaintiff initially alleged damages for breach of warranty, common law fraud and violation of the Illinois and Pennsylvania consumer fraud statutes, the court found that only the Illinois consumer fraud count would stand. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill.2d 482, 675 N.E.2d 584 (1996).

Given the huge popularity of these vehicles, it causes one to ponder whether the manufacturers of these vehicles are working hard enough to solve this challenging engineering problem. But one thing's for certain: SUV manufacturers need to be more proactive in correcting a deadly situation they created and that they continue to propagate.