Brett A. Emison Automotive Products Liability Law Blog on Lawyers.com

According to the US Fire Administration, post-collision fires are the leading cause of vehicle-related deaths.  These fires ignite for a variety of reasons including failure to incorporate anti-siphoning valves, failure to include fuel filler tube check valves, misrouting of fuel lines, failure to protect fuel lines, improper placement of the fuel tank inside the vehicle's crush zone and inadequate shielding of the fuel tank.

Langdon & Emison is one of the leading automotive product liability law firms in the country.  We have fought nearly every major auto manufacturer on behalf of our clients and have reputation of success in the courtroom and results for our clients.

Many attorneys -- and even some consumers -- are familiar with tank location defects, such as the "side-saddle" fuel tank defect (in which the fuel tanks were located in an unprotected area on the side of a pickup truck outside of the frame rails) and "Pinto"-type defects where the fuel tank is located in an unprotected location between the rear axle and rear bumper.  However, today, tank location issues represent only a faction of fuel fed fire defect cases.  More common today are defects concerning fuel siphoning (fuel leakage after a fuel line has been cut or broken) and fuel filler neck defects.

Manufacturers concede that a vehicle occupant should not survive a collision only to burn to death in a fire caused by a fuel leak.  General Motors (GM) engineers advised the company's management more than 35 years ago that fuel leaks should not occur in crashes that would otherwise be survivable.  GM, as well as other manufacturers, failed to adopt this directive from their engineers and instead chose to comply only with the minimum standards imposed by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301.

Around the same time, GM prepared a "value analysis" that examined the cost of fire-related fatalities to GM.  The analysis, prepared by GM advance-design engineer Edward Ivey, has become known as the "Ivey Memo."  Ivey concluded that GM could save $2.20 per new car if it could prevent fuel-fed fires in all crashes.

Langdon & Emison was able to have the Ivey Memo introduced as evidence for the first time in any case in Baker v. General Motors.  Ronald Elwell, a GM engineer for more than 30 years, testified:

"Value analysis says all we have got is $2.20 to play with, if you will.  We can either put that money in a fuel tank, put that money in a fuel pump, put that money in a fuel line, but in our opinion, in order to save these people from dying, we can only put $2.20 into the new cars."

The Siphoning Defect

Siphoning is simply the flow of a liquid -- gasoline -- caused by pressure between the source of the liquid (the fuel tank) and a discharge point, such as a cut or break in a fuel line.  Siphoning can result from either gravity or pressure in the fuel system.  Once the siphoning has started, an ignition source as small as a spark will totally engulf the vehicle in flames.

An attorney investigating a siphoning case must determine the location of the break in the fuel line, the fluid level in the tank, and the orientation of the vehicle at the crash scene. If the break is lower than the fluid level in the tank, si phoning will occur because of gravity. If the break is above the fluid level, there must be adequate tank vapor pressure to force gasoline to siphon upward.

Siphoning cases are so successful for three primary reasons. First, the defect is easy for the jury to understand. While the scientific principles of siphoning may be somewhat technical, the concept is relatively simple. Most jurors will understand that gas will siphon from fuel tanks. Second, vehicle manufacturers have known how to repair the defect for many years. Finally, the cost of the safety device to prevent siphoning is minimal.

The automotive industry has known for many years that siphoning can contribute to post-collision fires. GM documents dating back to the early 1970s establish that the company knew about the danger and evaluated the cost of incorporating a shutoff valve inside the tank.

GM engineers discussed several "solutions" to prevent siphon ing after it was discovered that a car siphoned fuel from its tank in a 50-mph crash test into a pole. These included shutoff valves inside the tank; check valves at the tank; various shutoff connectors; and a vent hole in the fuel line at the tank.

Ford documents from the same period also discuss the hazard and various check or shutoff valves that would solve the problem.

The Filler Neck Defect

Since every vehicle must be fueled and refueled, every fuel system is designed with a significant hole -- the fuel filler pipe.  Manufacturers have known since the 1960s that check valves or other safety devices should be incorporated into the filler necks of fuel tanks to prevent the escape of gas during a collision. However, with only a few exceptions, automakers have failed to equip vehicles with these valves, and this defect has led to unnecessary injury and death in collisions.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the National Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB)—the predecessor to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—issued a report in 1967 concerning performance standards for fuel-tank protection. The agencies found that it was common for fuel to spill from the fuel-filler pipe in a rollover or other type of crash and concluded that check valves located in the pipe would eliminate spillage:

"Information received from accident data reports indicate[s] that the rollover type of accident accounts for the highest incidence of fatal burn injuries. In a rollover accident, fuel is often spilled from a virtually intact system. Separation of the filler pipe from the body shell or from the tank opens a large exit for the fuel. Also, the vent pipe of the tank can spill during and following an overturning accident."

Check valves located at the filler-pipe and vent-pipe openings of a fuel tank would eliminate spillage during rollover or upset. These check valves might be gravity operated, spring loaded, or operated by vacuum from the engine.

In 1970, General Motors identified the solution to the problem in a memorandum that discussed a proposed modification to FMVSS 301, the fuel-system-integrity standard:

"The rollover problem is two-fold. [N]ot only must the system not leak as designed, but it must survive severe front and rear impacts. Due to the usual poor repeatability of crash tests, it may be necessary to put emergency no-flow devices in each line emerging from the tank."

The concept of a check valve for the fuel-filler pipe is nearly as old as automobiles themselves. Patents dating back to the 1930s refer to these devices. The early patents discuss "flapper valves," which were originally designed to prevent intentional siphoning of gas from the tank. These valves were later designed to stop the flow of gasoline out of the fuel tank in a collision.

An attorney handling a vehicle-fire case should investigate whether a fuel spill from the filler neck led to the blaze. If so—and if the car was not equipped with a check valve—the plaintiff should argue that the filler neck was defective and that a simple, well-known safety device could have prevented the car's occupants from suffering injury or death from the fire.

Vehicle fires remain a significant auto safety problem. While fuel-tank-location cases might continue to be common, attorneys should always consider whether the case involves a siphoning defect or a defect associated with the filler neck of the fuel tank.

Langdon & Emison has offices in Chicago, St. Louis and near Kansas City.  We try cases across the country and represent seriously injured persons and the families of those killed by defective products or the negligence of others.  Our practice areas include automotive products liability, general products liability, trucking accidents, railroad crossing accidents, mass tort claims, dangerous drugs and commercial litigation.

Become a fan of Langdon & Emison on Facebook.