#and the other side is full of disabled people and victims who handle their trauma in unpalatable ways | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

floralkittygambler · 4 years ago

Text

Return of The Thing

Sort of. By thing, I mean me. But I love this movie and the meme. Ok, context for this post: - Where I’ve been - Why I left - Whats hip happening - Where I’ve Been:

Long story short, I’ve had real life matters to deal with. Firstly, my entire household contracted COVID. Well, *almost*. We’ve been through constant testing, quarantine zones, and had the ambulance up numerous times. My parents and 2nd oldest sister were hit the hardest. My 3rd oldest sister was positive and asymptomatic. Now something none of us could predict that I would be completely COVID free despite my compromises. Despite that I was in close contact with them all, including the 2nd oldest who contracted it first and accidentally being coughed on a few times lol. I went through the exact same testing and yet nothing. No symptoms. No presence of COVID. And I took no precaution to isolate from my family as I presumed in our small house we’d all get it, so I was more preoccupied with caring for the sick. Ultimately, I’ve either gotten off scott free this time or there’s a chance I may actually either be highly resistant or even immune. Even then, I WILL be having the vaccine as and when my family are eligible. And we all still follow regulations set. I’ve also had other real life obligations, much of it either mundane fixing up my living circumstances to more personal matters. Overall, I have been extremely preoccupied.

A mini update, the stray cat Big has been in our porch a lot more in recent times due to the snow as well as being even more affectionate. And Queefster passed away after a good life and a full tummy. Why I Left:

Aside from COVID, business, and my own health declining, I’ll be blunt. I left because of how disgustingly toxic most fandoms are nowadays, but Hazbin is one of the WORST for it. That includes harassment, death threats, mocking MI and triggering an ED. In fact, I’ve even seen others get rape and death threats. So yes, even if YOU are a decent fan, collectively most of you arent doing any favours. Even some critical blogs seem to be overtly catty in ways no one else seems to pick up on under this ‘look how blunt I am’ look and it’s just... You dont have to be a prick to have your say, to be honest and to disagree with the trending. That’s a few on and off of tumblr, and no one I follow anyways.

In regards to my ‘sensitivities’ - two things: 1) Of course trauma is going to hurt, 2) Im fully aware of kids doing and receiving much of this, which hurts MORE. I have my own lil squids and Im worried of them eventually having to deal with this shit. And no, no one SHOULD have to put up with such rude and poor behaviour. Agree to disagree doesnt live in some people’s realities, but by God harassment and bullying seems ok if YOURE doing it or enticing it. That ISNT ok. Even if it seems like nothing to you it could kill another. I certainly will not take your shit.

On huskerdust I STAND by my words. It’s fucking creepy and there is sexual harassment and obsession. And there are large triggers. I will not go into detail here because Ive done that dance before and I’ll be refining it again. YOU may like it, however it triggers my very real traumas as well as those in my bloodline. Be respectful and keep that shit away from me. And for goodness sake, parents PLEASE dont raise your children to behave as such online. And no, being anon isnt actually fully anonymous. Also to send hate and threats anon is not only traceable but also cowardice. Grow a pair and find a hobby. I avoid my traumas for the most part. I will not allow you to weaponise or diminish my own or others experiences for your fictional based gratification. Likewise, if it becomes canon, I’ll just make an AU where it is not. Simple. You can hate it but Im not your personal circus so go be toxic elsewhere. IF you like HD and follow me, honestly... Youre probably better to unfollow as I am deeply and passionately against it and stolitz, and valvox, and am very vocal on that. Dont mistake my traumas and discomfort as a personal attack - and dont personally attack me over it either. And before anyone claims homophobia, no. This is nothing to do with sexuality. You arent the victim. If you love these pairings with your soul to the point of a ‘stan’, then youre best off unfollowing because I really am too old for extremists and rabid fans more crazed than the infected in REC. Also I never used to hate angel but now... Fans behaviour is abhorrent and hes so over saturated that I honestly really dislike him now. Doesnt mean you have to hate him too, but just bloody respect that angel isnt loved by all, he can be triggering to some as well as toxically enabling [incl. past addicts], a vile homophobic gay stereotype and just overall a lack of knowledge and respect of sex workers as a whole. When you know a lot of the ins and outs and victims, it’s hard to overlook. I respect your triggering ships by avoiding that mess. Respect others. The problem with Viv - and I will elaborate in the future - is that your audience is often a reflection of your work and it’s message/presentation. And most of the fandom Ive met are awful. Honestly, though lonesome I find more comfort keeping distant from fandoms because yall often extremely toxic and petty. Perhaps others have had better experiences than I however Im drawing a line in the sand. For MY sake. I’m annoyed with virtually anyone I sense great potential in that becomes wasted. Im angry at Viv because she can do so much better but is blocking HERSELF. This is from a creative and business mindset. When someone has potential that gets wasted - especially creatively - it burns me. Im just passionate on artistic fields. It doesnt mean I hate them. I hate the waste of full potential.

I’ll state things here people disagree with but encouraging harassment, hate or just being an overall cunt just aint on- It’s like people charade as being this fair being but its all bullshit. Self improve and sod off, I do NOT have time to parent you online.

And obviously there are RL duties I must fulfil. Some in which I will need the publics assistance for if you can spare it. Overall, Im just... Fandoms behaviour generally disgusts me. Disappoints me. We SHOULD be better than this. It’s like listening to bloomin incels rant on fuckin chad or some bullshit pill theory instead of looking to improve themselves too. Honestly... I do mostly acknowledge my own flaws and faults and try to improve each day. It just feels fewer folk see that in themselves and do the same. And that’s coming from an old cunt whos far from fuckin perfect. Also, my fuckin laptop broke so I waited a week for a bloke nearby to fix it. What a fuckin lifesaver, he’s the real mvp!

Also Also, one of you did privately apologise and I appreciate that. I certainly hope we agree to disagree and continue to grow as people on our separate ways. Trust me, I dont forget small acts like this. Even the trauma that caused and the aftermath, please dont think I dont appreciate the apology. However you’re also entitled to know that the forgiveness and healing side may take longer for me due to various factors that occurred - much that few are aware of, including yourself especially. I wish you well and safety.

Hip Happenin Now:

Still busy but slowly visiting. I’ll reply and reblog soon, be patient please. Ive still many things to sort which take priority as well as other things. Im trying to get money n shit for a future and whatnot. Health issues are strong in the blood rn and Im spending extended time with both Big and the other pets to keep up harmony, especially now that Big is accepting slowly that our porch is a welcome shelter for him and he’s free to leave and stay whenever. Trust me, overloaded isnt even the word. Im prepping shit early this year and from now on. Also, my God Ive been dealing with more physical issues as well and had to play doctor. May even need medical interference but holy shit I could never see this coming. Still... It’s... An experience- If you could call it that. Staying more active and healthy. Cat’s nearly clawed my eye out in my sleep (to which I can only presume Billy got too close or hyper) but it’s fortunate placement so Im alright. Most of my body is in pain to the point of absolute normality at this rate. And I plan to make space for a better altar. Future of the Blog:

Errr, it’s my fuckin space so it’s whatever I want really. Ill still have my Viv rants (ie, pros and cons of her work, HH/HB, other shit like that) however I just really dislike most the fandom at this point as well as the poor management and lack of professionalism and attitudes of staff. It’s just draggin me down and making me ill. I also want to showcase more of MY work (from redesigns to projects to some dumb 2am shit), cosplays, fashion, hobbies, spiritual practises - MY. SHIT. I feel like Ive strayed slightly. But I WILL be honest. And damn well will it upset people. And if it does and I’m genuinely ding something wrong/harmful - guide me patiently. Educate me. If it’s like this HD shit where Im not only allowed my opinions but justified on my traumas or mocking my disabilities or features, then just yeet yourself elsewhere. Also some of my gaming shit too. Getting to know folk who interact with my stuff and just... Create my space. For me. Something hopefully others can enjoy. Something that can function as a bit of an art portfolio as well. Critiques and whatnot. But I will continually not stand for anyone’s shit or poor handling of serious matters. You will not cause me to doubt and invalidate my experiences like you have to others. For now, Im tottering but slowly returning. For those who I previously and daily interacted with, I will get back to you. And Im sure you’re patient and understanding of my situation - it’s appreciated. But in terms of any fandom, more so if it’s known to be as hostile, I’d rather keep a healthy boundary between us. That’s for newer folk. Perhaps we may bond further and you’re welcome to try, however I do feel far safer not getting involved into other people’s shit any longer. I will put anon back on but any toxic shit will be reported as well as compiled so at least I have a reference on the actual toxic nature of fandoms. Likewise, Im slowly getting there but god theres a lot of fuckin work. So much that not even my closest friend has heard too much from me until recently. I’ll be returning to the grind for now as I have duties, as well as many demanding felines for my attention. Alongside some physical medical concerns which require additional care, I’ll be popping off now. Im thankful for those who have checked in on me. I will reply shortly. Take care

#im fucking tired #ive hardly had any alcohol lately as well #ive snuck some though but not as much for unwind time sadly #also discovered sourz alcohol and it is wonderful #i made someone laugh until literal pissing themselves though so #im taking bloody pride in that comedy so

0 notes

reading-while-queer · 7 years ago

Text

Six of Crows, Leigh Bardugo

Rating: Great Read Genre: Fantasy Representation: -Gay/bi protagonists (ensemble) -Two protagonists of color (ensemble) -Disabled protagonist (ensemble) -Mentally ill protagonist (unspecified, trauma related) Note: Not sexually explicit Trigger warnings: Violence, Death, Graphic injury, Fantasy drug abuse, Rape/sex trafficking/CSA (not in scene; character backstory), Guns, Slavery, Racism (exotification), Genocide (explicit; Holocaust metaphor)

Six of Crows was a great read, hands down. It was not without its problems, but I want to focus first on how it was successful. I read Six of Crows—a hefty tome, to say the least--in a little over a month. I couldn’t put it down. Bardugo does an excellent job maintaining tension and keeping the plot rolling, which is especially impressive considering the frequency with which her characters recall the past. What I liked the best was the unpredictable nature of the plot. Bardugo holds back just enough information to keep the reader guessing without becoming frustrated. This is done expertly by telling the story through multiple character perspectives. The reader worries alongside them that they will never to be able to get out of the latest mess they’ve gotten themselves into—until another character reveals they have planned for this all along. It’s a narrative trick that Bardugo uses again and again—and damned if it doesn’t work every time.

The premise of Six of Crows is that a ragtag team of criminals are hired to break into an impenetrable palace and rescue a political prisoner before said prisoner is either killed or coerced into releasing the secret formula to a super-drug that transforms magic-using Grisha into human weapons. Six of Crows is a heist novel, which isn’t my usual cup of tea, but it helps that the characters aren’t suave spies who know exactly what they’re doing. Bardugo does a great job humanizing her cast. They have weaknesses from gambling to trauma to romantic crushes. They don’t know that they are going to get out of this heist alive, but the money is too good to turn down, and each of them have a desperate need for it. The fact that the main cast themselves aren’t confident they will pull of their heist adds to the tension and makes for some delightful storytelling.

Beyond pacing and plot, I felt that the characters were well developed and had interesting dynamics with one another. They had fears, weaknesses, allegiances, histories, and relationships that grew and changed as the story progressed. I won’t spoil any romances beyond saying that there are a few, and that I was, for the most part, satisfied with their progression.

As for representation, I had heard that I would have to get through this book to get to the sequel before any queer relationships began to develop. While it’s true that there is no queer romance in book one, two characters in Six of Crows are clearly queer—they don’t necessarily have to get together for them to be valid representation. They flirt, they dance around the possibility of reciprocated feelings, and it’s all very cute. Most importantly of all, they have character traits beyond their queerness—it isn’t central to their motivation, which is refreshing.

The straight romance is hit or miss. One couple has an extremely satisfying progression to their relationship. But the other romance is so aggravating that it makes me reconsider rating Six of Crows so highly. Which brings me to the Holocaust metaphor. In Bardugo’s fantasy world, Grisha, or magic users of various disciplines, are persecuted by the reactionary Fjerdan government. Fjerda is at war with Ravka, which boasts the Second Army, all of them Grisha magic users collected from various nations where being Grisha puts them at risk of slavery or execution. Fjerda’s citizenry is white, blonde haired, and blue eyed. The country is vaguely Nordic in religion and language, and its people value discipline. Of all the countries, Fjerda is the most violent towards Grisha—Grisha are perceived as less than human, and are burned to death on pyres by the elite military of Druskelle—who wear black uniforms. Fjerda is very clearly a parallel to Nazi Germany.

This is made worse by two things:

First, Six of Crows pairs a Druskelle and Grisha romantically, which was never going to be satisfying. I won’t give too many spoilers as far as whether they get together, but regardless of the outcome, it wasn’t a good call. You can’t have your Holocaust metaphor and your romance, it’s like having your cake and eating it too. The narrative wants you to pity Mattias for the torment of loving Nina while seeing her as an inhuman abomination. The fact that Nina loves him too is incredibly frustrating considering how solid her character is otherwise. Bardugo put forth a valiant effort to earn a romantic relationship between them, but no effort would have been enough. I’m sure the relationship—and Mattias’ redemption arc alone—is enough to make Six of Crows a deal-breaker for some.

Second, you can’t have a heavy-handed Holocaust metaphor and also try to make the point that both sides have their problems. The Grisha fight back, often fighting dirty, and this is used in the book to open Nina’s eyes to the Fjerdan perspective. Which wouldn’t be so bad if Bardugo didn’t lean so hard on the Nazi metaphor, from the black uniforms to the racial coding. Again: I can very easily see this being a deal-breaker.

And continuing on the thread of deal-breakers…I personally liked how the novel handled race and gender marginalization, but it might be triggering to some readers. The two female protagonists are victims of slavery or sex trafficking. Inej was trafficked into sex work before being bought out of her contract. Nina was threatened with rape when she was captured by Druskelle. The threat of sexual violence is a heavy weight on both of them. Personally, I thought that it was handled well as an element of worldbuilding. It wasn’t played for shock value. I felt that while exploring the histories of characters from the “Barrel”—a slum in Ketterdam (fantasy Amsterdam), it would be remiss to skip over the ugliness. Happily, while Bardugo usually doesn’t shy away from graphic brutality, she spares the reader graphic detail when it comes to sexual violence.

As for race, I felt that Bardugo constructed race in her fantasy world with careful attention to how race would be understood on a global stage that never had racial slavery. There is exoticism—“Suli (Middle Eastern) lynx,” for example, is the racial caricature foisted on Suli sex workers. Shu Han (East Asian) and Zemeni (African) people have their own caricatures as well. But exoticism seems to be more based on nationality than race: “Fjerdan (Nordic) wolf” and “Kaelish (Irish) mare” are apparently equally dehumanizing caricatures. The only time race plays a role in the book is in identifying people or attempting to avoid identification. The main cast is searching for a Shu Han man, and scan prisoners for racialized features. Inej, who is Suli, likewise worries that her and Jesper’s skin tone will make them stand out in a pale-skinned Fjerdan crowd. But discrimination doesn’t come into play. Difference is noted, but there is no systemic oppression. Suli and Zemeni and Shu Han characters make their way in the world unmolested. The “White” nationalities, Kerch, Fjerdan, and Kaelish, regard each other with the same eye of difference, not common race. In their world, colonization exists, but it is just beginning. One can sense global change on the horizon—just not quite yet.

This brings me to a spoiler-y point. I recommend skipping this paragraph if you don’t want to be spoiled on a plot point near the end of the book. One Kerch character (fantasy Dutch/German) elects to disguise himself as another character who doesn’t share his race/nationality. The disguise may or may not be permanent, but the Kerch character takes the chance that he might look like another character forever. It is necessary in order to pull off a trick Kaz is planning, but of course divorced from Bardugo’s invented world, it’s blackface/yellowface/brownface. A lot of readers might be very uncomfortable with this. If the world of Kerch and Fjerda and Ravka were real, it wouldn’t be racist. There is no history there that would lead to a taboo on black/brown/yellowface: it would a neutral disguise like any other. But reading from our world, it recalls a lot of pain. I’m not prepared to say it’s a bad thing that one character uses magic to change his appearance to match another’s out of disguise/necessity in the context of a de-racialized world. I think that it sets up an interesting problem for the sequel--a problem that can’t be explored outside of fantasy literature--and I’m interested (if concerned) about how Bardugo will handle it. Hopefully with more delicacy than the Druskelle/Grisha Holocaust metaphor. Then again, much like the disaster of a Holocaust metaphor, whether or not the fantasy world justifies it doesn’t matter if it causes real world distress to readers of color. All I can say is: read with caution.

All this, and I have said nothing about Kaz.

The real delight of this book is Kaz Brekker, the leader of the heist and feared gang member back in Ketterdam. His character illustrates the relationship between poverty and trauma. The trauma is not an addendum to his character with little impact; rather, it is a part of him that shapes his relationships and impacts his ability to make decisions. I thought the handling illustrated well how trauma integrates itself with a person. The topic was taken seriously and handled with care.

Kaz’s physical disability is important to discuss, too—Kaz uses a cane full-time as a result of a badly healed break. His relationship to his disability is well executed, and given that it comes from a disabled author, that is little surprise. His cane is not a symbol of disaster, but rather, of strength. It is his weapon as well as his mobility, and he views it as a symbol of his rise from the ashes. With his cane, he goes from barely surviving to practically running a major gang.

Altogether, and despite it’s marked flaws, I have decided to rate Six of Crows highly. The idea is original and well-executed. The characters are well developed, and you will be extremely worried for them as you read. You’ll root for the queer characters as they slowly reveal more of themselves. Disability, queerness, and trauma of all kinds are handled very well. What isn’t handled well is really in bad taste--that cannot be overlooked. I just regret that it might prohibit some readers from enjoying an otherwise great novel.

For more from Leigh Bardugo, visit her website here.

#six of crows #leigh bardugo #great read #fantasy #gay #bi #protagonist of color #disabled protagonist #mentally ill protagonist #ya only #reviews only

68 notes · View notes

davidslepkow · 4 years ago

Link

Many victims make the mistake of using a local car accident lawyer for their roof crush rollover accident case. A local car crash attorney may concentrate in garden variety rear-end car accidents and slip and fall. A local automobile wreck attorney may even cover a speeding ticket every now and then to help keep the lights on. Why use a fender bender lawyer for a roof crush death lawsuit? Why use a lawyer a couple of years out of law school for a catastrophic rollover injury lawsuit? You can have a big time, NATIONAL high profile roof crush lawyer on YOUR SIDE at a big time law firm. This roof crush attorney will have the experience and resource in obtaining multi-million dollar settlements on behalf of his or her client.

Roof crush fatality lawsuit

A TOP ROOF CRUSH LAWYER

A local lawyer is likely only able to handle a fender bender or slip and fall at a local supermarket. Get a “WHITE KNIGHT” lawyer to take on corporate America and extract a possible high 7 figure settlement from the auto industry manufacturer. Get the best personal injury lawyers who is willing to take the manufacturer to the mat to secure a possible punitive damages claim against the wrongdoer manufacturer. A good defective automobile law firm will be well aware that Crashworthiness safety systems must work together. For example, the roof structure and safety belt restraint systems are only as strong as the weakest link in the chain. If every link in the chain is weak due to defective design, death or catastrophic injury such as paralysis may result.

CRASHWORTHINESS, ROOF DEFORMATION, INTERNAL REINFORCEMENTS

A high powered roof crush attorney will fully understand the complicated issues concerning:

crashworthiness,

roof deformation,

internal reinforcements and

biomechanical analysis.

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND STRENGTH OF THE ROOF

Generally, rollovers are actually relatively benign events and most occupants walk away with minor injuries. But this principal assumes that the crashworthiness safety systems are installed and do not fail, and that the structural integrity and strength of the roof are maintained.

ROLLOVERS ARE IMMINENTLY SURVIVABLE EVENTS

Expert biomechanical analysis has been conducted on over 900 full scale laboratory tests with male and female pilots with nominal accelerations being at 10 g. Some of the tests had accelerations of approximately 15 g. No injuries resulted to any of the test subjects. Therefore, the level of acceleration measured at the vehicles’ center of gravity during a rollover event is within human tolerances. Rollovers, therefore, are imminently survivable events.

“Yet the industry and Bush Administration’s statements require a thorough analysis of belt performance in rollover crashes and issuance of a federal motor vehicle safety standard. Rollover deaths are now a full one-third of all occupant fatalities, or over 10,000 each year. When serious injuries are added, the number of people whose lives are forever altered by rollover crashes rises to an astonishing 26,000 each year. Federal data show that 22,000 people who were wearing a safety belt died in rollover crashes in the U.S. between 1992 and 2002.” Citizens.org

WHAT IS THE SAFETY HIERARCHY OF PRIORITIES?

The safety engineering hierarchy of priorities is :

1) eliminate hazards;

2) when hazards cannot be eliminated, provide foreseeable safeguards against them;

3) provide warnings and personal protective equipment against remaining hazards.

“SURVIVAL SPACE” OR “NON-ENCROACHMENT ZONES”

Since the late 1960s, auto manufacturers have incorporated the concept of “survival space” or “non-encroachment zones” within the occupant compartment, which is not to be intruded upon in a rollover. It was during this time that manufacturers became aware of the need to limit intrusion into this space in order to prevent serious injury and death of vehicle occupants. It has long been acknowledged as fact that the risk of a head injury increases as headroom is reduced.

But the concept of maintaining occupant survival space applies to all manner of impacts, from rollovers to rear-end collisions, to front or side impacts. In fact a recent lawsuit alleged that:

GM’s own internal memoranda show that in 1966 it had internal safety goals that a roof structure should be strong enough to withstand a 70 mph ground level rollover and that a survival space for the occupant should be preserved in an inverted drop test from a height of 5½ feet.

GM conducted such tests and found that its vehicles crushed catastrophically from very low drop heights. In one such test, intrusion was about 9 inches at the A-pillar when the vehicle was dropped from just 6 inches.

GM then changed its testing methodology to a static test procedure and found that the same vehicles passed that test more readily. Then GM advocated to have that test be the standard that the government used to develop FMVSS 216.

ROOF STRENGTH OF GM VEHICLES

The recent lawsuit also asserted that:

Instead of designing improved vehicles to protect occupants in rollover crashes, GM designed a test procedure to protect its vehicles.

Shockingly, the roof strength of GM vehicles changed little in the decades that followed. Indeed, independent testing has found that the roof structure of the 2006 Chevrolet Suburban (identical in design to the 2006 Yukon XL) does not perform any better than GM’s 1967 drop testing noted above. GM vehemently fights any changes in the standards or testing. The average motoring public, however, is kept ignorant of this fact and how common it is.

DUTY OF CARE IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY PERTAINING TO ROOF CRUSH?

It is well-accepted in the auto industry that occupant protection in a rollover type event can only be accomplished through a systems approach, which includes maintaining the survival space for the occupant, providing an effective restraint system that functions properly in a rollover, and providing mitigation technology that keeps the occupant inside the survival space.

IF OCCUPANT’S SURVIVAL SPACE IS NOT MAINTAINED, IT CAN CAUSE DEATH OR PARALYSIS

Published literature indicates, without ejection, that about 97.4% of belted and 92.2% of unbelted occupants in rollovers had less than an AIS Level 3 injury. But that does not apply when the roof crushes in on an occupant and the occupant’s survival space is not maintained. Of course, a seatbelt has no value in the prevention of an injury from the roof crushing in on the occupant. In some cases, there is no question that a victim was wearing his seatbelt and wearing it properly in the event that both photographic and the physical evidence showing definite evidence of loading from the crash. If a victim’s belt jams in an extended position after the accident, it is consistent with how such ABTS safety belts utilized by a certain manufacturer and how these vehicles perform. The belt would be retracted if it had not been worn prior to and during the accident sequence.

SURVIVAL SPACE OF THE VEHICLE, CAN BE SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED BY THE STRUCTURAL FAILURE OF THE ROOF

In some instances evidence shows clearly that the driver’s belt failed to properly restrain and the victim was not kept within the survival space. Thus, despite the nature of a rollover event, the subject vehicle could experience a center of gravity acceleration that would have been within the human tolerance level. In some cases, all occupants are properly belted at the time of the rollover event. In car accidents the roof structure could be deformed and intrude into the victims’ survival space. In other vehicular accidents, the victim will be struck by the intruding roof resulting in the compression / flexion of the cervical spine.

EXCESSIVE ROOF DEFORMATION CAUSING FATALITY OR CATASTROPHIC INJURY

The visor sitting below the steering wheel demonstrates how severe a roof crushed can be and how much it can intrude into the survival space of the occupant. This is never supposed to happen. Some victims experience head, facial, and other more minor injuries by comparison (AIS Level 1 or 2) directly related to the rollover dynamics without excessive roof deformation. A victim who wears her seatbelt, may be more likely to be scratched up and sore from the rollover, especially when the roof did not crush over her head and she did not suffer the life-threatening and permanently disabling injuries.

TYPES OF INJURIES FROM A ROOF CRUSH

severe trauma to face, requiring numerous stitches,

Blood pockets on brain.

Jaw extremely swollen.

Significant permanent speech impediment.

If the survival space is not maintained, the victim may suffer a cervical spine injury due to the roof deformation, an AIS Level 5 (Critical) injury. The victim may suffer serious and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to: quadriplegia from the cervical spinal cord injury as a result of a roof crush

THE VICTIM COULD EVEN SUFFER:

a fracture and dislocation of the C6 and C7 discs;

bilateral pulmonary contusions;

paralysis

dysesthesia;

parathesia;

subgaleal hematoma;

Such injuries may cause the need for a mechanical ventilator. Some auto accident victims will never walk again. Some truck accident victims will not even have the strength to even lift to reposition in bed or prevent from sliding down in the car’s seat on trips to the doctor. Other car crash victims cannot wheel themselves in a manual wheelchair.

POTENTIAL INJURIES AND DAMAGES FROM ROOF CRUSH ACCIDENT:

total and complete assistance with every aspect of daily life.

never work again as had prior to this near fatal injury.

never be able to provide for family.

Extreme medical and physical complications associated with quadriplegia (some of which increase the risk of dying / death)

Muscle trophy in upper and lower extremities (and the resulting disfigurement),

deep vein thrombosis,

urinary tract infections,

paralysis

kidney stones,

autonomic dysreflexia

retinal hemorrhage,

subarachnoid hemorrhage,

cardiac arrhythmias

hypertension,

hypercalciuria,

coronary artery disease,

metabolic syndrome,

diabetes,

orthostatic

hypotension,

cardiac arrhythmia,

pneumonias,

neurogenic bladder,

renal insufficiency,

gastrointestinal conditions

Quadriplegia

ROLLOVER ACCIDENT LAWYER

Rollover accidents are perhaps the most dangerous type of incident that a driver or passenger can experience. This type of accident will almost always result in serious injury or fatality. Rollover accidents do not simply happen without some sort of predicate. Oftentimes, this predicate is the defective design of the vehicle that makes it more prone to rollover. Those who have suffered injuries or damages as a result of a vehicle rollover may be able to obtain compensation and damages under a product liability theory of recovery.

Rollollover accident and auto defect

WHAT IS A ROLLOVER ACCIDENT?

A rollover occurs when a vehicle flips either onto its side or its roof. This can occur either as a result of impact or through vehicular maneuvers. Certain maneuvers, such as a double lane change, may cause the vehicle to rollover. Sometimes, this can occur due to driver error or malfeasance. For example, excessive speeding may precipitate a rollover. However, rollovers may also occur due to design defects in cars. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, SUVs are more prone to rollover than passenger cars because of their center of gravity. SUVs are taller and narrower than passenger cars which is a risk factor for a rollover. Pickup trucks have an even higher risk of rollover than do SUVs.

DESIGN DEFECTS CAUSING ROLLOVER ACCIDENTS

The design defects that may cause a rollover could be a defective tire or faulty design or manufacturing. Vehicles that are overly top-heavy or that have weak roof structures can be more prone to rollover. In addition, certain design features in the car can make rollovers even more dangerous for a vehicle occupant than they already are. For example, a defective door latch can pop open during a rollover, magnifying the effect of the rollover. The roof may have been made with a material that cannot withstand a rollover. In any event, more than half of fatalities in SUV accidents are caused by vehicle rollovers. Every year, there are approximately a quarter of a million vehicle accidents that have a vehicle rollover.

PRODUCT LIABILITY THEORIES

Car manufacturers may be held liable for damages and injuries caused by vehicle rollovers. There are several different type of product liability causes of action. The three primary theories of action are negligence, warranty and strict liability. All three of these theories could be applicable to vehicle rollovers. With regard to negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the manufacturer owed a duty to the plaintiff and breached that duty. Then the plaintiff must also show that the manufacturer was both the actual and proximate cause of the injury. Finally, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered actual injury. More likely, a plaintiff will be attempting to obtain recovery under the strict liability theory. This would be premised on the fact that there is a design defect in the vehicle. This would revolve around the showing that the vehicle was dangerous for its intended use and that the manufacturer could have made an alternate design that did not cost much more. This alternate design would have made the vehicle safer to operate. Manufacturers will almost always try to escape legal liability by arguing that the manner in which the driver was operating the vehicle was the cause of the injuries as opposed to any fault in design or action of the manufacturer.

LAWSUITS AGAINST MANUFACTURERS

There have been many lawsuits filed against auto manufacturers for vehicle rollovers. These lawsuits have been filed as both individual causes of action as well as large class action lawsuits. For example, in 2010, a Mississippi jury awarded $131 million to the family of Brian Cole, who was killed when his Ford Explorer rolled over in a one-car accident. Cole was a pitcher in the New York Mets organization at the time he was killed. The suit alleged that the Explorer was not suitable to be used as the family vehicle that it was marketed as because of its tendency to rollover. The suit also alleged that the vehicle was not crashworthy. The parties settled the suit before the jury could assess punitive damages. Some of the reason for the large jury award was that Cole was widely regarded to be a future major league star. The Ford Explorer is the most rollover-prone vehicle in existence. It is estimated that one in every 27 Explorers have had a rollover incident in which one or more occupant of a vehicle was killed. The numbers are even worse for the Ford Bronco as one in every 500 Broncos were involved in fatal rollovers.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS AND ROLLOVER DEATH

There have also been large class action lawsuits brought on behalf of vehicles owners who had not been involved in an accident. These suits were premised on the fact that the vehicles did not retain their value because the rollover issues depressed the resale market for the vehicles. For example, in 2008, Ford settled a class action lawsuit brought by Explorer owners. Other automakers have faced class action suits for vehicles rollovers as well.

Those who have suffered injury in a vehicle rollover or their families should contact a lawyer to discuss their legal options. It is important to know that not only can the car manufacturer be found liable, but others may be as well. Product liability law holds that anyone that is in the “stream of commerce” may be found liable. This expands the potential liability parties to those who manufactured the auto parts as well as the dealer that sold the vehicle. Plaintiffs can recover for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering and loss of consortium. In addition, in egregious cases, those found liable for vehicle rollovers may be subject to punitive damages. Manufacturers usually vigorously contest these cases and will use every argument at their disposal to escape liability. Oftentimes, they will make an issue of the plaintiff’s driving or the fact they were not wearing a seatbelt. Thus, it is important to have experienced legal counsel to represent one’s legal interests.

IS THE 2006 GMC YUKON XL DEFECTIVE?

In a lawsuit filed by John Smith in UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION against General motor’s LLC in 2019 the following allegations were pursued (The name of the actual victim is withheld for privacy reasons. Please note that these are only allegations made by the victim that are being reported and are not government or judicial findings)

JOHN SMITH ALLEGED THE FOLLOWING IN HIS LAWSUIT RE: THE 2006 GMC YUKON XL:

Driver side A-pillar (the part of the frame at the front of the vehicle where the windshield is) could possibly collapse over the driver’s side around the window opening due to: no internal reinforcement.

Other causes of the failure could potential be the small section size of the A-pillar, especially in the lateral direction; the inner sheet metal is of extremely thin gauge, which is the surface most likely to collapse; and the reduction in size from A-post to A-pillar without adequate strength compensation.

The driver side B-pillar (between the driver and passenger seats) mid-span also could have a section collapse on the driver’s side due to: abrupt termination of reinforcements of the door window frames adjacent to the B-pillar which could result in localized structural weakness areas which help to create the signature failure mode of the Suburban (or Yukon) B-pillar.

There is also no internal reinforcement in the B-pillar.

It has a small section size, especially in the lateral direction. The inner sheet metal is also exceedingly thin, which is the surface most likely to section collapse.

In addition, there is a large hole in the inner B-pillar sheet metal.

There could be a third section collapse of the driver’s side header rearward of the Upper Windshield Corner due to: several large holes in the sheet metal. The number and size of the holes suggest they are there to simply lighten the side header rather than for any other purpose. The inner sheet metal of the corner junction terminates at the failure location. The side header has thin gauge sheet metal. There is also no internal reinforcement.

There could be a section collapse inboard of the passenger’s side corner junction. This is due to thin gauge sheet metal; a small cross section size; no internal reinforcement; a hole for the sun visor pivot; and the corner junction inner sheet metal ends.

In addition, the design of the Subject Vehicle was alleged to be defective and unreasonably dangerous because of an inadequate occupant protection system for rollovers. Specifically it was alleged that, it employs a structurally inadequate roof design that allows excessive intrusion in a very foreseeable and low severity rollover environment.

It was also alleged that General Motors failed to dynamically test the 2006 GMC Yukon roof and occupant safety systems appropriately, specifically in the rollover mode.

The car wreck victim also alleged that the accident and danger posed by the allegedly defective and unreasonably dangerous automobile should have been known to GM.

The victim asserted that Alternative feasible designs existed that would not impair the Vehicle’s usefulness or desirability and would have prevented the harm to victims

VICTIM ALLEGED THAT ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS WERE ECONOMICALLY AND TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE

John Smith, the victim in the roof crush lawsuit asserted that: alternative designs were economically and technologically feasible and utilized by other manufacturers at the time. The severely injured victim claimed that basic engineering principles that could have prevented the injuries to the victim were standard industry practices, at the time the 2006 GMC Yukon XL was manufactured include, but are not limited to:

Using closed structural sections in place of weak, shallow-tray open-sections; • Increasing metal gauge; • Replacing low-strength steel with high-strength steel (i.e., Boron steel is five times stronger than conventional steel); • Increasing section size; • Eliminating holes; • Improving component integration; • Implementing internal reinforcements, including tubular steel reinforcements; • Implementing external reinforcements, such as stiffening ribs or doublers; • Reinforcing component voids with structural foam; and/or • Using glazed windows.

GETTING JUSTICE USING A TOP ROOF CRUSH LAWYER

John Smith also made the following allegations against GM:

The cost and weight increase with such modifications are minimal. Notably, other manufacturers utilize some or all of these methods in their vehicles.

However, the evidence is that GM’s philosophy has been to make their Suburbans and Yukon XLs (identical designs) as light as possible to just barely pass government and internal GM standards. Even GM has managed to make its Chevrolet Traverse have a stronger roof structure, but it has chosen not to do so with its other models.

Another important issue in roof crush fatalities / death is whether the Subject Vehicle was in substantially the same condition as when it left the control of GM and had not been materially altered, modified, or damaged prior to this incident. If the vehicle was not modified, the nature of the defects with regard to the failure of the safety belt restraint system is usually inherently the result of GM’s design.

ROOF CRUSH WRONGFUL DEATH LAWYER

There is little doubt that paralyzing injuries could result from a vehicle that has a poorly designed occupant protection system. A properly designed occupant protection system should include a restraint system designed to minimize occupant contact with the roof interior, and a roof structure that protects the survival space. If the survival space is not maintained a roof crush accident can result in death necessitating a roof crush wrongful death lawyer.

OCCUPANT KINEMATICS

If the safety belt fails to properly restrain the victim, the victim can experience dangerous occupant kinematics, including unreasonable occupant motion during the rollover collision. A roof deformation can expose the victim’s head to severe contact with interior vehicle surfaces, and compromise the effectiveness, if any, of the restraint system. If a safety belt design in question has a tendency to spool out, it can be very problematic.

This was demonstrated, in a recall of numerous GM S/T trucks with Takata ABTS seat belts. Those GM vehicles used substantially similar safety belts to the Yukon XL, but with an allegedly less effective web sensitive feature. GM should have recalled all the C/K trucks, since the vehicle sensitive part of the retractor was known to fail, but they petitioned the NHTSA for an exemption, which the NHTSA, unfortunately, granted.

POOR DESIGN OF A SEAT BELT

A victim’s excessive movement after a rollover crash could result from the poor design of a seat belt. If the seat belt keeps a victim’s buttocks in close proximity to his seat, as required by reasonable design parameters and goals, such as those developed by Volvo for the XC-90, a victim would not develop a sufficient excursion velocity to expose himself to severe interior impacts.

DEFECTIVE SEAT BELTS WITH SOME DEGREE OF SPOOL-OUT

Nearly every belt that was measured in testing had some degree of spool-out. Takata belts have been subjected to vertical acceleration tests for the purpose of evaluating performance in rollover-type scenarios. Despite having a web-sensitive feature, the Takata retractors spooled out in the testing. Similar retractors made to EEC/ECE European specifications did not spool out in the same testing. If the vehicle sensitive mechanism was broken, as it was in many ABTS vehicles equipped with this retractor, the retractor would not lock at all. In some cases the roof structure can be compromised as well due to a poorly designed pillar and roof rail system.

REASONABLE SAFETY DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Did General Motors fail to apply reasonable safety design principles and establish design criteria for the Yukon XL, which would result in providing reasonable occupant protection in a rollover collision? Without such safety design principles and design criteria in place, there is no possibility of a company making a safe rollover protective design. Is the Yukon XL not reasonably safe in that it could fail its fundamental purpose: to restrain the occupant and keep the occupant away from internal components of the vehicle that could result in serious injury?

GENERAL MOTORS’ OWN INTERNAL RESEARCH DATING BACK TO AS EARLY AS THE 1960’S

If the safety belt system does not remain locked throughout the course of the rollover it would allow the victim to move into the intruding structural components at higher velocity than if the belt performed well. Does the performance of the Yukon XL violate the critical design considerations reflected in General Motors’ own internal presentations and research dating back to as early as the 1960’s?

ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS THAT WERE ECONOMICALLY AND TECHNOLOGICALLY FEASIBLE

Some additional alternative designs that were economically and technologically feasible and employed basic engineering principles which were standard industry practices, at the time the 2006 GMC Yukon XL was manufactured include, but are not limited to:

Using rollover activated pretensioners as used on the 1997 Volvo C70, on the 1997 Freightliner over-the-road tractor and current General Motors trucks;

Using a properly designed cinching latch plate which reduce excursion in rollovers by several inches, even if the belts do not spool out and help minimize the effects of retractor spool-out;

ROLLOVER PRETENSIONER IS ACTIVATED BY A SENSOR SYSTEM

The consequences of the belt displacement could be minimized by the actuation of the pretensioner. This device has been demonstrated to reduce occupant excursion in rollover collisions by as much as 40%. A rollover pretensioner is activated by a sensor system capable of detecting a rollover. They were in use by other manufacturers and were technologically and economically feasible when the Subject Vehicle was designed and manufactured by GM.

Cinching latch plates were used on the early Ford F-150, and tested in the Ford v. Ford case. They were also used, historically, in the GM Blazer and other SUV’s. This was demonstrated during the Malibu II testing, which GM relies so heavily on.

IMPROPERLY DESIGNED RESTRAINT SYSTEM AND INAPPROPRIATE ROOF STRUCTURE

The victim in the lawsuit set forth above alleged that GM could have taken the following precautions:

Providing a retractor and buckle pretensioner in the Subject Vehicle which GM did on most of its other vehicles in the 2006 model year, but did not add an inexpensive rollover detection system here; • Equipping the Subject Vehicle with rollover sensors; and/or • Using a properly designed restraint system that would keep the victim’s buttocks in his seat, which if combined with an appropriate roof structure, significantly improves rollover survivability which is nearly assured.

HIGH CENTER OF GRAVITY MAKING THEM MORE PRONE TO ROLLING OVER

The victim in the lawsuit alleged:

Yukons have a high center of gravity making them more prone to rolling over even on pavement.

In other words, the vehicles do not have to be taken off road in order to experience this heightened risk of rollover.

These vehicles are particularly dangerous in rollover events because a roof crush can occur if the integrity of the support beams are not maintained resulting in roof collapse and crush.

SOME OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY VICTIMS

“The design defects, manufacturing defects, or both, rendered the 2006 GMC Yukon XL unreasonably dangerous by making the automobile dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer with the knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.

The vehicle was unreasonably dangerous as designed, tested, manufactured, marketed, distributed, assembled, and/or tested because GM knew and/or should have known of non-exhaustive list of defects set forth above and as follows: a. The Subject Vehicle failed to provide proper rollover protection; b. The Subject Vehicle allowed excessive roof crush and did not maintain adequate survival space for all occupants; c. The structure of the Subject Vehicle, including the roof, doors, body joints, supporting pillars, and driver side structural support was defective and unreasonably dangerous because it failed to protect the occupants in a foreseeable accident sequence such as a rollover event; d. The Subject Vehicle was manufactured with insufficient bonds, welds, and seams of the driver side structural support; e. The Subject Vehicle had a defectively designed and inadequate safety belt restraint system; f. The Subject Vehicle was not equipped with a sensor system capable of detecting a rollover which would also activate a pretensioner; g. The Subject Vehicle was not equipped with side curtains for rollover protection; h. The Subject Vehicle was not equipped with roll sensing technology and/or roll bars; i. The Subject Vehicle failed did not have glazed windows; and/or j. Such further defects as the evidence will reveal. failed to use technologically feasible and available alternatives for each of the defects set forth above.”

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF A STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN CASE:

“The elements of a cause of action for strict liability failure to warn are: (1) the defendant sold the product in question in the course of its business; (2) the product was unreasonably dangerous at the time of the sale when used as reasonably anticipated without knowledge of its characteristics; (3) the defendant did not give adequate warning of the danger; (4) the product was used in a reasonably anticipated manner; and (5) the plaintiff was damaged as a direct result of the product being sold without an adequate warning.” Moore, 332 S.W.3d at 756 citing Tune v. Synergy Gas Corp., 883 S.W.2d 10, 13 (Mo. 1994). Failure to warn under strict products liability is a distinct cause of action from design defect. Moore, 332 S.W.3d at 757 (“design defect and failure to warn theories constitute distinct theories aimed at protecting consumers from dangers that arise in different ways.”) Moreover, a finding of a design defect is not a prerequisite to a finding that the defendant failed to warn of the unreasonably dangerous nature of the product. Id. citing Palmer v. Hobart, 849 S.W.2d 135, 142 (Mo. App. 1993). Negligence causes of action. Moore, 332 S.W.3d at 764 (“‘Although negligence and strict product liability theories are separate and distinct, the same operative facts may support recovery under either theory, particularly in a failure to warn case.’”) citing Hill, 721 S.W.2d at 118.

THE VICTIM ALSO ALLEGED THAT:

“It is undisputed that GM provided no warnings about the higher rollover risk of Yukons or structurally inadequate roof design that allows excessive intrusion in a very foreseeable and low severity rollover environment. GM provided no warnings that the Subject Vehicle contained a defective safety belt restraint system design and that safety belts will not protect one from a roof crush event. Missouri law presumes that Plaintiffs would have heeded any warnings.”

“The Subject Vehicle was used in a reasonably anticipated manner at the time the accident happened. It was being driven with the speed limit, down a paved highway, during the day. There was nothing out of the ordinary about how it was being used.”

“Plaintiffs was injured and suffered damages as a direct result of the defective condition of the Subject Vehicle which existed at the time the Subject Vehicle was sold and about which he was not warned. Further, it is undisputed – and indisputable – that the victims spinal cord injury and resulting quadriplegia was caused directly by the roof crushing in on him and/or the failure of the safety belt restraint system.”

GM breached its duty to Plaintiffs by designing, manufacturing, and marketing the 2006 GMC Yukon, including the Subject Vehicle, in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition, in that the Subject Vehicle’s propensity to rollover and its inadequate roof structure and/or inadequate safety belt restraint system made it defective and unreasonably dangerous as set forth above. Additionally, the Subject Vehicle was not crashworthy and lacked availabletechnologically feasible safety features and alternative designs as set forth above.”

The victim alleged that “For GM, it was also foreseeable that its SUVs, like the 2006 Yukon XL, which is particularly prone to rollovers, would experience a catastrophic roof crush event in a rollover. GM’s own internal memoranda, testing, and design decisions demonstrate this and GM’s knowledge. It is also well- known among experts and within the industry. It is not made known to the public, to whom GM denies such facts and fails to disclose or warn of them.”

2003 CHEVROLET C1500 SUBURBAN HAS NO ROLLOVER PROTECTION OR ROLL STABILITY CONTROL

Some injury lawyers believe that GENERAL MOTORS LLC, (hereinafter, “GM”) manufactured a defective, unreasonably dangerous automobile namely a Chevrolet C1500 Suburban. Some car accident attorneys assert that the vehicle can lead to deadly collisions. These allegations were made in a recent lawsuit against GM as a result of a 200 Suburban accident. These auto accident attorneys commonly call these type of case:

“roof crush” cases or,

“crashworthiness” cases,

GM designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban, which some people still own and drive regularly.

In the lawsuit, the victim alleged that:

If a motorist loses control of the vehicle, the vehicle could inexplicably roll on pavement, and if the integrity of the roof was not maintained, as it should have been, this could cause a victim’s head to be crushed thereby causing a death. This is commonly known as a “roof crush” case. This motor vehicle was not equipped with certain safety features such as electronic stability control, rollover protection, and rollover protection airbags, despite those safety features being known, available, and economically feasible at the time the vehicle was manufactured.

Roof Crush death accident

If you suffered a catastrophic injury or a loved one was killed in a fatal accident, you may be able to file a roof crush or crashworthy lawsuit. A defective motor vehicle, wrongful death lawsuit may help a victim or his or her family get a sense of justice and closure.

ROLLOVER ACCIDENTS- ROOF CRUSH

The victim in the lawsuit asserted the allegations set forth below:

Suburbans have a high center of gravity making them more prone to rolling over even on pavement. In other words, the vehicles do not have to be taken off road in order to experience this heightened risk of rollover. Given their significant weight and size, these vehicles are particularly dangerous in rollover events because a roof crush can occur if the integrity of the support beams are not maintained resulting in roof collapse and crush. This is alleged by some to be known to GM. The Chevrolet Suburban has been in production since 1935.

Had the roof not been defective and lacking in the structural integrity, victims could potentially survive serious accidents.

A 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban could leave the roadway and ultimately rollover. A victim who is properly restrained, not intoxicated or impaired in any way, and was a careful, safe driver. could be subject to death in a rollover. This fatal accident could be caused as a result of the allegedly defect design of the vehicle which allowed excessive roof crush.

No one denies that GM designed, manufactured, marketed, and sold the 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban.

CRASHWORTHY- CRASHWORTHINESS

The 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban is alleged by some to not be crashworthy. Many injury lawyers alleged that in some rollover accidents, the integrity of the roof was not maintained, as it should have been, which thereby causes a victims head to be crushed causing death.

The 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban also did not have Electronic Stability Control (ESC), or StabiliTrak (General Motors’ version of ESC), which is an essential safety feature that reduces the risk of loss of vehicle control, despite that being a feature available in GM’s passenger cars as early as 1997. GM made ESC standard on its full-size extended vans in 2003, but chose not to do so for its Suburbans. GM’s North American President, Gary Cowger, said in 2004, that “Except for the growing use of seat belts, we have rarely seen technology that brings such a positive safety benefit to the driving public.”

The 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban also failed to have any rollover protection devices or roll stability control.

Further, the 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban did not have rollover deployed airbags, also called rollover safety canopy airbags, which are designed to deploy during rollovers and stay inflated for five seconds. Evidence obtained thus far indicates that in 1998 GM planned to install a rollover protection airbag in their 2003 Suburbans but discarded this plan in May 2000 due to a “negative business case.” In other words, public safety was not as important as the bottom line despite GM’s own research demonstrating the importance of such a feature. GM tossed out the idea of rollover protection airbags due to alleged cost concerns, but did spend money on new satellite radios and leather seats for the 2003 Suburban. Sadly, those cannot save lives.

Importantly, in 2003, numerous SUVs contained this technology, including the Volvo XC90, the Ford Explorer and Expedition, Lincoln Aviator and Navigator, Mercury Mountaineer, Toyota Land Cruiser, Lexus LX 470, and various Mercedes passenger cars. The technology was available and economically feasible at the time this vehicle was manufactured.

DEFECTIVE ROOF DESIGN- ROOF CRUSH CASES CAN BE DEADLY

GM may claim or argue that no safety features could have avoided the injuries suffered by certain victims and that the victims death was unavoidable. GM may try to blame various victims. The primary issue here is that the roof was alleged to be defective in that it did not maintain its structural integrity above the driver.

Photographic evidence may be utilize by a personal injury attorney or a product liability lawyer to argue the unreasonably dangerous nature of the vehicle, especially due to the possible failure of the roof to maintain its structural integrity

It was entirely foreseeable to and well-known by Defendant that accidents and incidents involving its vehicles, would on occasion take place during the normal and ordinary use of said vehicle.

Some defects attorney allege that injuries occur because the vehicle was not reasonably crashworthy, and was not reasonably fit for unintended, but clearly foreseeable accidents. The vehicle in question was unreasonably dangerous in the event it should be involved in an incident.

Design Defect – GM designed, manufactured, and/or sold the applicable Vehicle, with one or more design defects including a roof that was not crashworthy, lack of ESC, lack of rollover prevention, and lack of rollover safety canopy airbags.

GM designed the 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban and allegedly knew of safer alternative designs that existed at the time of production that would have prevented or significantly reduced the above risks without substantially impairing the vehicle’s utility, and was economically and technologically feasible at the time that the subject vehicle left GM’s control by the application of existing or reasonably achievable scientific knowledge.

DANGEROUS MOTOR VEHICLES- DESIGN DEFECTS

Many lawyers allege in lawsuits that GM breached its duty to design a reasonably safe, crashworthy vehicle, which was the proximate cause of wrongful deaths.

The design of the product is inconsistent with a consumer’s reasonable expectations of safety when using the products as intended by GM. Indeed, consumers who purchase and drive large SUVs like Chevrolet Suburbans expect them to be safer, sturdier, made of heavier, stronger steel, and that they will protect them in the event of crashes, including rollovers. They do not expect them to cave in and crush its drivers or passengers.

Manufacturing Defect – In addition or in the alternative, GM designed, manufactured, and/or sold the 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban, with one or more manufacturing defects, more particularly set forth above. The defective vehicle manufactured by GM deviates, in its construction or quality, from the specifications or planned output in a manner that renders the automobile unreasonably dangerous.

Unreasonably Dangerous – The design defects, manufacturing defects, or both, rendered the 2003 Chevrolet C1500 Suburban unreasonably dangerous by making the automobile dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer with the knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics within the meaning of Section 402A Restatement (Second) Torts. The vehicle was unreasonably dangerous as designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, assembled, and/or tested because GM knew and/or should have know of the following non-exhaustive list of defects:

PROPER ROLLOVER PROTECTION- DEFECTIVE AUTOMOBILES AND SUVS

Lawyers allege that the vehicle failed to provide proper rollover protection;

Attorneys assert that the vehicle allowed excessive roof crush and did not maintain adequate survival space for all occupants;

The vehicle failed to have ESC; and/or

The vehicle failed to have a rollover safety canopy, or rollover airbags.

GM may be in possession of all the technical materials and other documents regarding the design, manufacture, and testing (if any) of the vehicle in question. GM may also be in possession of what, if any, engineering analysis and testing it performed. GM my also be in possession of information as to how susceptible to loss of control, rollover, and roof crushes its Suburbans are in general and the 2003 Suburbans in particular.

GM owes the public and motorists in general a duty to exercise ordinary care in designing, manufacturing, marketing, testing, selling and distributing the vehicle in question; and to discover dangerous propensities of its product. GM failed to exercise ordinary care in designing, manufacturing, marketing, testing, selling and distributing the vehicle in question which had the defects as described above.

Sources:

Legal Match –

Ford Rollover death verdict

Legal basis for liability in product cases

Judge oks Ford Explorer Rollover Settlement

#rood crush accident

0 notes

itsbenedict · 7 years ago

Text

No Driver’s License: Session 5

[adventure log- from the beginning]

[session 4]

Last time on No Driver’s License: wiiiiitch fiiiiiiiiiight, which the players won handily. They went to where Nishi-chan said the safehouse was at, found the witch ＬａｍｐｌｉｇｈｔＪｏａｎ rampaging, and put her down pretty handily, claiming a weird grief seed that Nishi-chan warned them not to use. Then a scary evil MG showed up and tried to get them to give it to her, and they managed to escape down a hatch to the safehouse right before her giant magic death shark ate them.

(pictured: @drazelic‘s drawing of @eternalfarnham‘s character, Kazama Ibara, who beat the everloving shit out of Joan while getting the everloving shit beat out of her in return.)

So what happens now that they’re in the safe(?)house?

Well, first off, the door to the safehouse led to a vertical shaft- and it was too dark for any of them to see the ladder, so they all tumbled down and landed in a big heap they had to extricate themselves from, to Sakura’s drastic abashment.

So, in the pitch blackness, Seina is the first to try and solve the problem like a reasonable person. She takes out her cell phone that she has, and uses its flashlight. Now they can see! And the only exit to the small room they find themselves in (besides the ladder back up, to where the overpowered shark summoner is waiting) is a dark tunnel that stretches on a long ways.

On their way through the tunnel, Nishi-chan gives them sharkgirl’s name- Yamauchi Yoshe. The name sounds sort of familiar to Sakura, but she doesn’t roll well enough to remember it exactly. So she turns to Google, which also fails, and her school website, which doesn’t have a public register of students. Finally, she tries Facebook- and finds Yoshe’s profile. It’s hidden, but she also finds that a few of her Facebook friends (who are mostly classmates she’s barely if at all spoken to and aren’t actual friends) are friends with Yoshe, making it pretty likely she attends her school.

Yukari wisely advises not to immediately investigate Yoshe using an online tool that’s connected to her civilian identity, so she drops it there and the team proceeds into the darkness.

At the end of the tunnel, they find the world’s most suspicious object ever: a vase of daffodils on a small desk. There’s also a left turn that leads deeper into the safehouse, but clearly this vase of flowers needs to be investigated in detail.

They thoroughly inspect the incredibly suspicious vase of flowers, and find that it hides exactly zero secrets whatsoever. It’s just flowers. It must be a trap, but they continue on regardless.

At the next bend in the tunnel, they find the second heinous trap on the wall: a motivational poster!!!

They could handle some flowers, but this diabolical obstacle was going FUCKING DOWN

The party is somewhat split on this.

Eventually, the deadly foe is utterly vanquished thanks to Makoto’s heroism.

They finally reach an actual room, with a lightswitch, and turn it on. They find... just, kind of a nice apartment! A clean kitchen, a sofa, more flowers, and a desk covered in half-finished homework. Someone clearly lives here, and- OH FUCK THERE’S MORE MOTIVATIONAL POSTERS, SHIT, IT’S TIME TO TAKE ACTION

Eventually, after Yukari’s outburst quells the rampage of indiscriminate poster destruction, (and after Ibara raids the fridge to address the fact that she hasn’t eaten in like days,) Nishi-chan tries to get people back on track. During the confrontation with Yoshe, she claimed she could bring the magical girl who’d become Lamplight Joan back to life- and is eager to get around to it.

People aren’t exactly eager to trust Nishi-chan, what with how she apparently kinda sort of tried to kill them earlier. A whole lot of questions ensue, including:

“Is Olivia going to be okay? Can she go home?”: Nishi-chan says that Yoshe can only sense people by tracking where their telepathy comes from, and that- since nobody replied to Yoshe back when they were in the apartment- Yoshe probably doesn’t know exactly which apartment they were in at the time, which means Olivia is probably safe.

“How long are we trapped here?”: Until Yoshe gets bored and decides to go cry to- and then Nishi-chan cuts herself off, not mentioning who exactly Yoshe reports to. Yukari guesses that she has an Incubator on her side.

“What’s up with Incubators? Don’t you take sides against each other, for some reason?”: Nishi-chan unconvincingly lies, saying that, oh yeah, there must be a third incubator on Yoshe’s side, because she and Tama-chan have nothing to do with her at all, HA HA HA WHAT A CRAZY IDEA

They start rolling Seek the Truth to get more info out of Nishi-chan, but they flub their rolls and she clams up, and tries to redirect the conversation back to them handing over Joan’s Grief Seed.

Yukari tries to use her Prophecy power again to find out if this is a bad idea- she looks at the future “if they trust Nishi-chan”, rather than anything more specific. What she gets is... a mess.

While Yukari is trying to make sense of this data, Sakura decides she’s tired of beating around the bush and distrusting people, and tries to covertly slip the Grief Seed to Nishi-chan. Ibara, though, notices what she’s doing, and snatches it away before she can finish. There’s a brief fight that ends in Ibara getting a tick of Trauma on her “disdain for victims” track.

Yukari eventually interprets the data as “trusting Nishi-chan will cause the girl to come back, but we’ll probably get in a fight with her, which could go badly.”

She turns out to be completely correct about this- Nishi-chan eats the seed, and spits out a soul gem. They notice- using uncharacteristically lucky Real rolls- that the gem looks a little weird.

Reiko, apparently, does not like home invaders very much. She doesn’t understand how they all got there, and they’re in her house and it’s her house and how dare they be in her house! It’s supposed to be safe, no one is supposed to be able to bother her there, they CAN’T be here!

She transforms, brandishing her magical weapon- a baseball bat full of nails.

She’s in full-on aggressive panic mode, and everyone scrambles to try to calm her down- trying to fill her in on the situation, explaining that she’d witched out, and so on- but it all goes in one ear and out the other, because she is too busy being ANGRY. Seina tries to use her empathy magic to alter Reiko’s emotions, but unfortunately the magic empathy locks on the wrong emotion- fear of the ghost shark outside. Reiko remains highly agitated.

Yukari tries to be blunt about it, explaining that Reiko became a witch and they were the ones who saved her. This... does not make her less agitated, and has the unfortunate side-effect of alarming the rest of the party- Yukari had tried to dance around the “becoming a witch” part of the exposition earlier. General panic increases.

Sakura, then, decides to defuse the situation in the most direct way she can think of.

Awwww! What a heartfelt gesture! Clearly this means she should roll 2d6+Heart to see if it succeeds, right?

Congratulations, Sakura! You’ve passed your skill check... on resisting Reiko’s passive ability!

Thera, though, requests a retcon- Sakura does not recoil before the fire manages to do any damage. She’s still got candy armor left over from the Lamplight Joan fight! She decides to tank the hit.

Reiko, ultimately, is completely flabbergasted by this gesture, and is a little too confused to start attacking. She shoves Sakura away- and demands that Ibara, who rolled a success on Help Someone Out, start helping her out by giving her information.

Ibara answers several questions, and rats out Nishi-chan as the one who told them that the safehouse was there and helped them get inside. She also tells her about Yoshe, who will definitely kill them if they leave. Reiko is not quite heartless enough to send them to their certain deaths, and being able to blame Nishi-chan helps take the heat off. It’s starting to look like this conflict is defused.

(Because there was no way in any hell that I was going to forget about that.)

So she gets pissed, but Sakura decides to roll Change the World to repair the posters before things can get too nasty. She rolls... a crit 15, which means it succeeds but has noticeable side-effects. One poster ends up with the wave turned to syrup, and her face watermarking the sky.

Reiko, thankfully, doesn’t notice these slight modifications just yet. She does get a little snippy about the stolen food, though. Ibara offers to buy her more groceries- and when the question of money is raised, Makoto holds up the 351025 yen left over from buying a phone for Tama-chan. Reiko’s jaw drops, and she decides that maybe it would be a good thing to have these very rich people feeling indebted to her.

As the team tries to walk away, Reiko grabs Nishi-chan, who does not get forgiveness for bringing strangers into her perfectly secure home. She begins incinerating her.

Most of the team doesn’t give a shit about this. Nishi-chan can respawn, and she’s kind of a dick, and kind of deserves it. Only Sakura remembers the practical problem with letting Nishi-chan temporarily die- without Tama-chan, Nishi-chan is their only relay for the use of telepathy. And without telepathy, Makoto is mute- and Sakura is Bigtime Ultra Gay for Makoto, and doesn’t want to be unable to talk to her.

At Sakura’s protesting, Reiko extinguishes Nishi-chan and flings her at Sakura. Sakura flubs her roll to catch her, and Nishi-chan bounces off her face and flops to the floor. Nishi-chan falls unconscious, and telepathy is temporarily disabled.

Makoto calls out, trying to make her teammates hear her- but no one hears her.

Luckily for the group, the hiding effect of the safehouse interferes with Yoshe’s telepathy-related tracking abilities. Her ability lets her pick up Makoto’s undirected mental cries (where other MGs would hear nothing without an Incubator as a go-between), but she can’t tell where she is.

Sakura tries to help Makoto communicate by texting with her cell phone, but she flubs her roll and ends up giving information overload, leading Makoto to panic. Sakura takes Trauma on “Isolation from Peers”, and Makoto takes Trauma on “lacks basic knowledge most people would have”.

They eventually reach Reiko’s “big empty room”, and set themselves to the task of finding a way to sleep comfortably on the hard floor. Seina uses Sorcery to produce piles of petals to sleep on- flowerbeds, so to speak. ( :V ). A middling roll means there aren’t enough for all of them to get a bed to themselves- there’s going to be an odd girl out. Ibara volunteers to keep a lookout while the others sleep, and Makoto volunteers to sleep on the floor (because that’s nothing new to her, poor thing.) Ultimately, though, the soluton of “Makoto and Sakura share a bed” is decided upon.

And the session wraps there, with the party finally getting some rest!

Now that a session has ended on something other than a cliffhanger, the players are free to use the channel to play out some scenes of downtime between sessions. Thera and Koho have a scene planned with Sakura and Makoto, and there might be other conversations that happen that night. I’ll be putting those up as Omakes in between session logs. And then, next week... we’ll see what’s waiting for the team when they wake up.

#no driver's license #pmmm #magical burst

3 notes · View notes