An otherwise survivable car crash can become deadly if a fuel-fed fire breaks out after the collision. While fuel is necessary for a vehicle to function, fuel systems should be designed to contain and safely manage the fuel and minimize the risk of the vehicle igniting after an impact. A vehicle fuel-fed fire commonly occurs when the fuel tank ruptures or is punctured. However, fuel lines can also break or come apart at their connection points and release fuel. Moreover, even with good tank and fuel line designs, the failure to incorporate anti-siphoning devices in appropriate places can lead to the undesired release of fuel. This can be seen in cases where the filler neck separates or is broken off from the fuel tank or when the vehicle’s fuel system is compromised and the vehicle is inverted causing the continuous release of fuel. While the causes for the escape of fuel can take on many forms in a collision, there are a number of structural vehicle safety defects that have been identified as being responsible for post-collision fuel-fed fires.
The Problem: Vehicle Fires in Survivable Accidents
Although fires occur in only 3 out of 1,000 collisions, thousands suffer either seriously disfiguring injuries or death every year because of post-collision fires.[1] The design and placement of fuel tanks are crucial to protecting vehicle occupants. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) states that vehicle fires are still a major problem in the United States.[2] There are accidents occurring in this country every day that are considered “moderate, survivable accidents,” but because of defective fuel systems, the occupants are either killed or seriously injured.[3] Many involved with these cases of defective fuel system designs feel that the “real tragedy” is that the automotive industry is aware of the dangers of vehicle fires, but has made business decisions that put profit ahead of safety.[4] Even General Motors noted in the early 1970’s that “fuel leaks should not occur in collisions which produce impact forces below the level that would cause fatality in the absence of fire.”[5] Notably, GM has had over 300 lawsuits related to defective fuel systems, and has paid over $495 million out in these lawsuits (not including confidential settlements) over the years.[6]
Determining Whether a Defect Exists
There are a number of design decisions that must be reviewed when determining whether the fuel system was defective, and whether the manufacturer should be held responsible for the results of that design. A significant design issue of concern involves whether the fuel tank is placed in a “vulnerable location,” referring to areas of the vehicle that are more susceptible to compromise in the event of a collision.[7] Auto manufacturers are aware that tanks located in areas likely to be intruded upon have a greater likelihood of damage to the tank, and thus, fuel leaks.[8] Also, ignition can occur because of sparks from contact with the vehicle with the ground and from contact between different metal pieces of the vehicle.[9]
A second design consideration involves determining whether the tank is in a “hostile environment.”[10] Even if a tank is located in an area that is adequately protected, placing hazardous structures near the tank can be considered a design defect. These components can be bolts, brackets, springs, mounting straps, and flanges, and pose a danger because they can easily puncture a tank if pushed or moved toward the tank during a collision. Alternatives to placing these components near the fuel tank are as simple as changing the shape of the components or placing shields between the components and the tank.[11]
“Component attachment failure” is another concern, and inadequate designs to address same result in many forms of fuel system defects. Many times, fires occur because “fuel has leaked from areas where components have become separated or detached.”[12] Most often this refers to the filler neck, which is the tube that feeds fuel into the tank. The vulnerability of the filler neck arises from its placement, the ease of which it can detach, and the weak materials often used to create this part. Alternatives exist. The filler necks could be made longer allowing for greater movement without disconnection, and more flexible pipe and better sealing methods could be used.[13]
Finally, “passenger compartment protection” is critical to keeping occupants safe from post-collision fires.[14] This defect arises when a fuel tank has been compromised and the vehicle’s structural design allows the fuel and fire to enter the passenger area quickly, thus increasing the likelihood of serious injury or death. Alternative, safer designs would create better separation between the fuel tank and the passenger compartment. For instance, engineers have suggested the use of metal bulkheads to separate these areas and better protect the occupant.[15]
Designs of Concern – Sidesaddle Fuel Tanks and Ford Crown Victoria Fuel Tanks
To understand fuel system defect litigation and the issues that arise, it is always helpful to discuss examples. One particularly dangerous design worthy of discussion is the “sidesaddle fuel tank” design. In such vehicles, the gas tanks are located under the driver’s seat, outside of the frame.[16] The tank is actually only protected by body sheet metal.[17] Therefore, the main problem with the sidesaddle fuel tank design is that it is not protected from punctures in a collision. In many of these explosions involving sidesaddle tanks, inspections show that the frame was not damaged.[18] These tanks were introduced in 1973 and 1987. In 1994, the NHTSA found the design to be defective and started a recall, however, GM challenged this and NHTSA agreed to withdraw its defect finding after GM funded research for safety issues.[19]
Another example are the fuel tanks in some Ford Crown Victorias which have been challenged as having a defective fuel system design. Particularly, Ford’s Crown Victoria Police Interceptor (CVPI), driven by members of police forces, are claimed to be defective.[20] At least 14 police officers have died in rear-impact fuel-fed fires in these vehicles. The fuel tanks are located behind the rear axle, in what is known as the vehicle’s “crush zone, and are surrounded by sharp objects that could puncture the tank in a collision.”[21] Further, it is alleged that the rear of the vehicle “lacks ‘energy management’— [in that] it does not sufficiently absorb the energy of a vehicle that strikes the CVPI from behind.”[22]
Despite the risks of fuel fed fires due to defective fuel systems, the federal safety standards continue to remain unchanged. All fuel tanks should be located in front of the rear axle and include anti-puncture shields, and fuel cell bladders. Sharp bolts, brackets, and other objects should be eliminated from the immediate vicinity of the fuel tank. When manufacturers fail to take these precautions, a defective fuel system is much more likely to catch fire in a minor accident, resulting in potentially devastating injuries.
References
[1] Mark P. Robinson, Jr. & Kevin F. Calcagnie, Fuel System Design: The Crashworthiness Angle, Trial 1 (Nov. 1, 1996).
[2] Robert Langdon & Peter Perlman, Explosive Cases Involving Defective Fuel Systems, Trial 1 (Mar. 1, 1999).
[3]Id.
[4]Id.
[5]Id.
[6]Id.
[7] Robinson, supra n. 1, at 7.
[8]Id.
[9]Id.
[10]Id.
[11]Id.
[12]Id. at 8.
[13]Id.
[14]Id. at 9.
[15]Id.
[16] Robert Langdon & Peter Perlman, Explosive Cases Involving Defective Fuel Systems, Trial 1 (Mar. 1, 1999).
[17]Id.
[18]Id.
[19]Id. at 3.
[20] David L. Perry & Patrick J. McGroder, III, Crash-and-burn Cruisers That Kill: Law Enforcement Officers Across the Country are being Injured and Killed when the Special Crown Victorias they Drive Catch Fire, Trial, 1 (Nov. 1, 2003).
[21]Id. at 2.
[22]Id.
