Continued from page 1

The story begins back in the 1960s when the automobile industry discovered that in frontal collisions lap belts, when used alone, can produce serious injuries to the head, spine and abdomen. When a frontal crash occurs, the lap belt restrains the pelvis, but the unrestrained upper body bends forward until the chest impacts the thighs, creating a high probability of spinal cord, abdominal and head injuries. In the exact same collision, a three-point restraint system with a shoulder and lap belt will prevent these injuries. (See seatbelt graphic on this page).

In pursuit of Stephanie's case, our firm developed evidence that showed Nissan, as well as other automobile manufacturers, consciously ignored decades of automotive, biomedical and biomechanical safety research which clearly established the failure of lap belts to provide adequate crash protection. In June of 1989, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard ("FMVSS") 208 requiring all vehicles sold in the United States to be equipped with a lap/shoulder belt restraint system in the rear outboard seating positions. Nissan did not install rear seat lap/shoulder restraints in its Sentras in the United States until the 1990 model year, and only did so when required by FMVSS 208.

In the early 1970s, Australia, France and Sweden, among other countries, required that vehicles be equipped with rear lap/shoulder belt restraint systems. In 1981 when Nissan introduced the Sentra, it was

sold in 80 countries with rear lap/shoulder restraints, but not in the United States. Despite the known safety benefit of rear seat lap/shoulder restraints, Japanese and American automobile manufacturers lobbied against the amendment to FMVSS 208 that would require vehicles sold in the U.S. to carry the rear lap/shoulder restraints. The lap/shoulder restraints for the rear outboard seating positions cost as little as $12.00 per car.

If Stephanie McGee had the same collision in Australia, Sweden, France or any one of the other countries where Nissan provided rear lap/shoulder belt restraint systems, she would not be confined to a wheelchair and unable to walk, run and play freely with her friends and siblings. At the time Stephanie's case was resolved, our incomplete investigation into other similar incidents ("OSIs") discovered at least 15 OSIs involving lap belt restrained rear seat passengers in Nissan Sentras who had suffered severe and disabling spinal, abdominal or head injuries. We believe that OSI evidence is very important in establishing the existence of a

defect in the design of the restraint system in the eyes of the jury. It is not only important to prove that the restraint system was defective and unreasonably dangerous through the testimony of experts, the safety literature and documentation from the manufacturer, but it is also important to demonstrate the fact that other people have been seriously injured as a result of the defect. OSIs have become an integral part of the proof necessary to win an automotive product liability case.

In occupant restraint cases, as in all other types of automotive crashworthiness cases, it is a sad fact that the Japanese and American automotive industry simply does not respond until forced to do so by the outdated minimum standards promulgated by NHTSA. Stephanie's case is yet another example of how a life that was tragically altered could have been saved if an automobile manufacturer had decided to follow sound automotive safety and biomechanical engineering data, and install rear seat lap/shoulder restraints prior to being forced to do so by government action.