A NHTSA study on Firestone ATX/Wilderness tire defects found that age was a definitive factor in failure, particularly in high-temperature environments that cause tire rubber to deteriorate more quickly. A 2003 presentation showed that a tire’s age contributes to failure and consequently, older tires were more likely to fail than newer tires. NHTSA’s Research and Report to Congress on Tire Aging revealed that 77 percent of insurance claims related to failing tires arose from states with hot climates, and of these claims 84 percent involved tires more than six years old.

Safety Research and Strategies (SRS) a consumer advocacy group that has urged the NHTSA to inform the public about risks of aging tires, cites 159 incidents of tread and belt separations of tires more than six years old in loss-of-control accidents. These 159 incidents caused 128 fatalities and 168 injuries according to SRS.

Despite these statistics, the average consumer-and sometimes even qualified tire technicians-remained unaware of the hazards of aging tires in the absence of guidelines and information. Tire industry documents produced in litigation show that tire manufactures know that tires have a shelf life. The natural rubber in tires deteriorates over time when it undergoes oxidation and ozonation. Three years after manufacture, tires become less safe and more prone to accident causing failure.

Any consumer armed with the right information can determine the age of a vehicle’s tires by checking the Department of Transportation code on the tire sidewall. The date and year of the tire’s manufacture are revealed by the last four digits of this number. Importantly, most car and tire manufacturers don’t tell customers how to find this information, or even why this information is important. As a result, many consumers drive automobiles and trucks with tires more than six years old and don’t know it. Even those who are aware of the age of their tires may not have been educated on the potential hazards of old tires.

After studies in the 1980s connected tire failure to age, some German and Japanese car manufacturers embedded warnings deep in their literature. Following the Firestone debacle, some other companies followed suit. However, many other automakers remained close-lipped.

On the heels of the Firestone catastrophe, two acts required NHTSA to further examine the issue of tire aging. The first was the Tire Recall Enforcement, Accountability and Documentation, (TREAD) Act, followed by provision in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, which required the NHTSA to study tire aging and potential regulatory testing, and to report back to Congress by August 2007.

After the Firestone recalls, Ford Motor Company recruited a polymer chemist named Dr. John Baldwin to examine the cause of the Firestone tire issue, and to look at the science behind tire aging. Baldwin’s research has played a role in understanding how tire’s age, and what happens when they do. Baldwin came up with a lab test that replicated oxidative aging and showed its damaging effect on tires, resulting in Ford recommending that tires be replaced after 6 years.

With the focus on tire safety and issues becoming more public, several American tire manufacturers decided to issue warnings as well. In 2005, Bridgestone-Firestone publicly noted that all tires should be removed after ten years, regardless of condition. Companies such as Continental, Cooper, and Michelin jumped on the bandwagon in 2006 with similar warnings.

Despite the technical findings by NHTSA, SRS, and Ford, and the warnings initiated by some tire and automobile manufacturers, many attorneys and consumer advocacy groups, including SRS, felt that a more formal and public warning to consumers was needed, and called upon the NHTSA to issue its first consumer advisory addressing the dangers of ages tires. Recent investigative segments on tire aging by NBC’s Today Show and ABC’s 20/20, combined with a June 4 Congressional hearing that gave Congress and opportunity to ask NHTSA how it planned to handle the issue of tire aging, pressured NHTSA to answer demands. The consumer advisory was sent out by NHTSA a day before the Congressional hearing.

While many attorneys and consumer advocacy groups don’t feel the consumer warning is quite enough, most agree it’s a start. The advisory warns people to check all of their tires-including their spare-for specific signs of wear, including under-inflation and worn treads. The advisory also warns consumers about the potential hazards of driving worn or improperly inflated tires in hot climates, which can lead to tread separations, crashes and rollovers.

The consumer advisory warning stops short of defining specific age limits of tires, despite a myriad of studies that the six-year mark is a line of demarcation. Instead, the warning suggests consumers refer to the vehicle and/or tire manufacture’s age recommendations. The advisory does note that many manufacturers suggest that tires be replaced between six and ten years, but leaves the definitive suggestions in the hands of tire and vehicle manufacturers.

While more steps can be taken to ensure that consumers are better protected from the potential hazards associated with tire aging, this latest step by the NHTSA will most certainly cut down on the number of individuals who are needlessly killed or injured because they are unknowingly driving vehicles with old, dangerous tires. However, because the tire industry still refuses to give consumers and retailers sufficient information to know about the danger and take preventative measures, needless accidents due to old fires failing will continue to happen.

SOURCE:Tire Retirement, by Richard Newson

In one of the baby’s crib, no safety peg was installed, and in the other instance, the safety peg did not engage in the baby’s crib.

Nancy Nord, acting head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, says, “We ask parents to inspect your crib from time to time and tighten up the hardware. It’s very important that parents understand they need to inspect the integrity of the hardware.”

Of the 1.6 million cribs, 985, 000 drop-side cribs of numerous models were recalled because they may have missing safety pegs. These cribs were manufactured in Taiwan and Indonesia and were sold by Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Target.com from January 1995 and September 2007. The other 600,000 cribs, manufactured in China and sold between January 2000 and January 2007, were recalled because of spring-loaded safety pegs.

The company will replace safety pegs or give spring peg kits to all consumers. Fortunately, the recall does not involve current cribs in inventory.

Who would have thought a baby’s life could be threatened by a crib?

The recent Delta recall came after an 8-month-old baby died as a result of suffocation when the absence of safety pegs caused the drop side of the crib to disengage and trap the baby.

While the Early Warning System was not able to save that child, the CPSC says the system has prevented many other deaths and injuries by brining safety concerns to the attention of the public and the manufacturers in a more timely manner.

However, according to the CPSC release, the agency believes crib standards can be strengthened even more, and is recommending new rules to explore possible mandatory performance requirements for cribs.

If approved, the new Advanced Notice of Proposed (ANPR) rulemaking would look into safety issues including hardware systems, assembly and instructional problems, and wood quality/strength.

In the meantime, the CPSC offers the following safety tips for all cribs:

• Parents should not use any crib with broken, loose or missing parts.
• Hardware should be inspected periodically for any necessary adjustments to keep the crib sturdy.
• When using a drop-side crib, caregivers should check to make sure the moving parts operate smoothly and are on track.
• Check sides of crib for disengagement that could result in a gap and entrapment.
• Do not try to repair a crib with tape, wire or rope. Use only manufacturer-approved equipment.
• Do not prop a broken crib against a wall to try to reinforce sturdiness.

According to the CPSC release, the defect has resulted in the death of an 8-month-old child, who became entraped and suffocated. The CPSC also is aware of two additional entrapments and nine disengagement incidents in cribs where the safety pegs were missing.

The CPSC alert states that the recall involves all Delta cribs manufactured in Taiwan or Indonesia, with the “Crib Trigger Lock with Safety Peg” drop side hardware design. These model numbers and country of origin can be located on the mattress support board label: 4320, 4340, 4500, 4520, 4530, 4532, 4540, 4542, 4550, 4551, 4580, 4600, 4620, 4624 (production dates 01/06 thru 11/07), 4640, 4660, 4720, 4735, 4742, 4750 (production dates 01/95 thru 12/00), 4760, 4770, 4780, 4790, 4820, 4840, 4850, 4860, 4880, 4890, 4892, 4900, 4910, 4920, 4925-2, 4925-6, 4930, 4940, 4943, 4944, 4947, 4948, 4949, 4950, 4958, 4963, 4968, 4969, 4980.

The recalled cribs have date codes ranging from 1995 through December 2005 and one model (4624) was made in 2007. The model numbers are located on the top of the mattress support board.

The CPSC says the affected cribs were widely available at retailers such as WalMart, Kmart and Target from January 1995-September 2007, and retailed for about $100. Because cribs are often sold secondhand after use, consumers need to be sure to check their crib to see if it is included in the recall.

Delta will provide a free, easy-to-install repair kit, which includes the safety pegs in a bold color and warning labels to be affixed to the mattress board.  Consumers can call Delta toll free at 1-800-816-5304 or log onto www.cribrecallcenter.com to order the free replacement kit.

According to the Australian News, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau reported that “data obtained from the A330-300’s recorder and cockpit voice recorder showed the jet had been cruising at 37,000ft before it suddenly climbed about 200ft, then pitched nose-down to descend about 650ft in 20 seconds.  The plane then returned to cruise normally before descending 400ft in another nose-down pitch, which lasted a further 16 seconds.”

When the crisis occurred, the plane was traveling from Singapore to Perth. As a result of the emergency, the pilot had to make an early landing at Learmonth air base, which is close to Exmouth, 1200 km north of Perth.

Nearly all of the 303 passengers have a claim, and the Civil Aviation Commonwealth Act gives passengers the right to receive compensation for injury, death, and damaged luggage.  The cap amount, set at $500,000, will have to be reviewed because if passengers received  permanent personal injuries, this amount would not be enough.

A computer malfunction is believed to be the culprit in the jet plane’s plunge. The hundreds-of-feet-plunge caused passengers, crew, and luggage to fly off the roof of the plane, causing personal injuries to passengers and the crew and damage to the luggage.

A Qantas spokesperson said the travel expenses for the QF72 passengers would be reimbursed “in the form of an ex-gratia payment.” Each passenger will also receive a Qantas travel voucher, allowing the passenger to fly from Australia and London for free.

Of the passengers and crew, five remained in the hospital in a stable condition, due to injuries.

That was not all for O’Neal. He also experienced brain trauma and an injury to his collarbone. Martinez and O’Neal filed a personal injury lawsuit against Indianapolis, Indiana-based Celadon Trucking Services Inc, the company responsible for hiring the truck driver, Micheal Wade. The claim stated the company was negligent in hiring Wade and that Wade was careless because he caused the accident.

According to Market Watch, “The jury award includes $750,000 for medical bills and another $750,000 for other actual damages such as pain and suffering, physical impairment and disfigurement.” The trial took place at Judge Gene Knize’s 40th Judicial District Court in Waxahachie, and the award of $1.5 million was announced on October 1, 2008.

On July 10 of this year, Alexandria Nalborne filed a personal injury lawsuit at the Hunterdon County State Superior Court in Flemington according to The Packett. The suit states that Nalborne received “severe bodily injuries” as a game of freeze tag resulted in another student shoving Nalborne into a lawn mower.

The Packett reports Board of Education President, Bob Campell, was aware a student was harmed, but he was unaware of the degree of injuries. The incident has been referred to the New Jersey School Board’s Insurance Group.

Nalborne graduated from South Hunterdon Regional High School last year.

After the incident at Hillcrest School in Hastings, Sussex, Cleary was off of work for a year because of the shoulder injury he received. Cleary, 61, has filed a $91,000 claim to recover his financial losses.

Cleary was on his mobile phone with the school’s Senior Management Team to report the misbehavior as it occurred. However, Cleary’s Town Hall Employers still believe he endangered himself by becoming involved with a ridiculous situation.

According to Market Watch, East Sussex County Council defended the claim with the school rules, which state that a pupil can only be grabbed when there is an “immediate danger of personal injury or to personal property.”

Cleary says he stepped in the incident to prevent the smaller student from receiving a personal injury from the larger student.

If the school administration and Cleary do no reach a settlement, a trial should occur within the year.

Several items in the proposed new standard, which updates the 35-year-old current regulation of vehicle roof strength, are being reviewed.

The new standard would require a vehicle’s roof be able to withstand a force equal to 2.5 times the vehicle weight, and to maintain sufficient head room for a seat-belted adult (average size male). The current standard requires only 1.5 times resistance. The new standard also would add vehicles up to 10,000 pounds, where the current standard applies only to vehicles 6,000 pounds.

Consumer groups, such as the People Safe in Rollovers Foundation, say the proposed new standard is still too lax. They call for a standard that would require a vehicle roof to withstand at least 3.5 times the vehicle weight.

Also at issue is the method used to test roof strength. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a nonprofit research and communications organization funded by auto insurers, noted a “surprising lack of evidence” that the quasi-static test procedure used by the NHTSA in the standard had any relationship to protection in real-world rollover crashes. They determined that without knowledge of such a relationship, it is not possible to determine an adequate level of roof strength for the vehicle fleet.

But perhaps the issue of most importance involves manufacturer liability. According to the Detroit News report, some senators are arguing that the NHTSA proposal would limit the ability of individuals to sue automakers in roof crush cases. Senators are asking the NHTSA to drop a provision in the new proposal that would pre-empt most state court lawsuits in connection with roof strength, the News reports.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), chairman of the Senate Commerce subcommittee on auto safety, along with two other senators, wrote a letter to the NHTSA saying the provision would “constitute an unprecedented incursion upon the constitutional rights of consumers,” and said Congress would oppose such restrictions.

The NHTSA roof strength requirement revisions are part of the agency’s stated goal of helping people survive rollover crashes, which account for more than 10,000 deaths each year. According to NHTSA statistics, rollover accidents represent only 3 percent of all crashes, but account for one-third of all vehicle deaths.

And not just a white dusting here and there, but thousands of tons of aviary excrement piled high like snow, blowing in the wind like baby powder, covering more than 80 gymnasium-sized warehouses.

As a result, Howard is suing USA Environmental in U.S. District Court, alleging the company’s managers went against company policy and federal law by exposing her to unsanitary conditions, according to St. Petersburg Times/TampaBay.com.

According to the news report, Howard alleges that in March 2004, the Army found out some USA Environmental employees were being exposed to a Hantavirus and Cryptococcus Neoformans, both of which can be found around bird droppings and can be fatal. Shortly after, USA Environmental developed a sanitation plan that included washing the facilities, and providing decontamination centers and protective equipment. But, Howard contends, supervisors were lax about initiating the changes and one manager even told her not to cause any problems, the Times reports.

Though Howard was since checked by a physician and appeared to be healthy, there is no way of knowing if she will get sick in the future from the exposure.