I have been asked to assist purely on a research/advisory basis on a matter where the counsel has posed a few questions in anticipation of the trial. The crash is a typical intersection right angle crash, both vehicles (4 door sedans) met, moved off and incurred approx 90 degree rotation, moving to respective rests, similar distances, on the merits of the case, all factors are largely common cause. Both vehicles had single occupants, the one driver suffering very little injury, no seat belt used. The other driver (plaintiff), also not belted suffered major injury, paralyzed. The single issue likely to be debated is that of the possibility of the plaintiff having suffered such severe injuries even if she was belted. The paralysis is due to upper spinal injury, likely as a result of a combination of severe whiplash and rotational forces applied to the neck area. I have personally seen occupants belted that have suffered such severe injury that death has resulted, as such I have no doubt that such an injury could be incurred even if belted. However, there is absolutely no research that I have been able to find that states unequivocally that such severe injuries can be incurred even if belted, has anyone seen such research/comments?
Perhaps you can start from the presumption as to what the seatbelt was originally designed to do - help restrain the occupant from forward movement durng a front/rear type impact. Their design hasn't changed since then so it would be fairly difficult to suggest that it was designed to reduce injury during a side impact. You could be fairly sure that if the s/b did hae any significant injury reducing ability that at least one of the manufacturers woldhave tried to use it as part oftheir sales pitch. On yor query as to research into the side impact etc, not seen any for s/b as that is generally dealt with by the secondary restrain systems. Your not alone in having seen the full range of injries being sustained during what are otherwise similar side impacts - perhaps that is where plain luck rather than science and research comes into the equation
Thanks BlueB, appreciated. I have searched extensively on all sites, SAE, NHTSA, NTSB, IIHS and many others, reading through more than 30 research papers on the issue of seat belts and injuries, as I mentioned, there is subtle mention of this issue, but none tackle it directly (perhaps a good subject for a research paper). My impression is that it is a thorny, somewhat subjective matter, as you seem to confirm. Thanks anyhow. Kind regards Craig.
I agree with the above poster, but have an additional question or two.
Were I you, I'd speak with the paralyzed victim's doctor to see if he can determine the type of stress restulting in the injury: was it rotational, or not? was it simply that the spine bent too far, or some combination of the two?
If the injury has resulted from some kind of torque action, then I think it's reasonable to explore the merits of injury reduction via seat belt use inasmuch as the seatbelt offers some degree of protection against that.
The reason being is that seat belts generally retard forward motion. If there's some kind of rotation action going on within the person's body, then one shoulder or the other is moving forward with respect to the center of their torso. A seat belt well could have mitigated that, particularly at lower speeds.
If the injury resulted from a side-to-side movement, then a seat belt isn't going to offer nearly as much mitigation, but there still would be some. If the injury is such that the paralysis resulted from just the spinal cord being injured, but no bone injury, then I think you'd have a weaker case in support of a seat belt having been sufficient to put that injury in the realm of neglible. But if the spine itself broke, then I think you'd have a stronger case that said victim could have well mitigated his own chances for this injury because the force required to break the spinal column itself would be greater than what's required to just damage the cord.
Also relevant would be the age of the person involved, whether or not there's an pre-existed back injury which limits the range of motion, whether or not the person suffers from any disease which would render them more susceptible to spinal cord injuries: osteopathic type diseases.
I just now went back and reread your post and I see that you indicate the injury is likely from some combination of whiplash and rotational forces. If this is indeed the likeliest cause, then I think you'd want to examine more closely how the seat belt can work to mitigate that.
As I said above, seat belts do offer some mitigation against tortion - always stronger in one direction than another because of the crosswise fashion in which they're situated across the torso.
You indicated this is a roughly ninety degree angle collision, but I see nothing which indicates whether this paralyzed driver hit the other car's passenger side, or whether his passenger side hit the other driver's driver side.
Good luck - hope that's helpful!
__________________
Regards, Johnathan
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is a situation up with which I shall not put." - Sir Winston Churchill
aha....Eureka...!...there we go...you hit the nail on the head Ash. I have spent the day obtaining the pre and post opertaive X-rays and MRI`s etc, and have discussed at length with Neuro, and a Chiro the likely type of movement of the head/neck order to have resulted in the damage. One of the issues discussed was the extent of physical damage to the actual discs, to the extent that removal of one was required, followed by pins / wires etc beinginserted, as well as removal of shards, likewise displacement of the discs was so severe that herniation of the actua spinal cord ocurred. It was a Female, aged 47, in very good health with no negative medical history what so ever. Your analysis echoes my research and line of approach exactly, the research is coming along nicely. I must just say that my research is not suggesting that seatbelts are not great (I never go without) however here, our legal system generally accepts a unilateral 20% reduction in the quantative value of a claim for non seatbelt use. Obviously this can be challenged, hence the research as the attorney (and I ) agree that these circusmstances warrant a challenge on this apportionment to a far lesser percentage. The vehicles met / orientated at impact almost exactly front left corner to front right corner, (other side of the road here) at arround 95degrees, secondary impact was text book left rear corner and left side to right rear corner and left side, followed by departures. Thanks once again for your review, much appreciated.
I see you caught one of my assumptions: the collision happened in the States. Knowing now that it happened elsewhere, I must ask - who cares? I'm only kidding, of course.
Yeah, if the damage is going to be extreme regardless of seat belt use, then a downward departure in the total percentage divided out makes sense to me.
But it sounds to me that you're on the right track to solving this. Keep up the good work, and if I can help with anything else, let me know.
^_^
(Edit: for my own edification, did you start with the x-ray/doctor/chiropractor route before you read my post, or as a result of it?)
Also, it's worth noting that my description of how the sides could have met (driver to - passenger; passenger-to-driver) holds true irrespective of which side of the road your country drives on. =P
-- Edited by ashman165 at 14:06, 2009-03-05
-- Edited by ashman165 at 14:09, 2009-03-05
__________________
Regards, Johnathan
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is a situation up with which I shall not put." - Sir Winston Churchill
I had already source the Doctors opinions and the X-rays - MRI`s prior to your post ...(Sorry no Edif. there) I shudder to think that anyone working in this field would not have the presence of mind to source this critical information when doing said research. Cheers, and thanks again for the input.
...!...there we go...you hit the nail on the head Ash. I have spent the day obtaining the pre and post opertaive X-rays and MRI`s etc, and have discussed at length with Neuro, and a Chiro the likely type of movement of the head/neck order to have resulted in the damage. One of the issues discussed was the extent of physical damage to the actual discs, to the extent that removal of one was required, followed by pins / wires etc beinginserted, as well as removal of shards, likewise displacement of the discs was so severe that herniation of the actua spinal cord ocurred. It was a Female, aged 47, in very good health with no negative medical history what so ever. Your analysis echoes my research and line of approach exactly, the research is coming along nicely. I must just say that my research is not suggesting that seatbelts are not great (I never go without) however here, our legal system generally accepts a unilateral 20% reduction in the quantative value of a claim for non seatbelt use. Obviously this can be challenged, hence the research as the attorney (and I ) agree that these circusmstances warrant a challenge on this apportionment to a far lesser percentage. The vehicles met / orientated at impact almost exactly front left corner to front right corner, (other side of the road here) at arround 95degrees, secondary impact was text book left rear corner and left side to right rear corner and left side, followed by departures. Thanks once again for your review, much appreciated.
