Deadly Seatbelts

In an effort to keep our visitors updated on relatively new issues, we wanted to alert you to a widespread automotive seatbelt defect called the “energy management loop,” sometimes also referred to as “rip stitching” or “EM Loop.”

The EM Loop consists of a portion of the seatbelt that is folded over on itself and sewn together so that the stitching rips during collision, adding several inches of slack to the seatbelt.

The “energy management loop” was designed in an attempt to manipulate crash test results by inducing submarining and therefore reducing head injury numbers in frontal crashes. Rather than making vehicles safer, however, EM Loops greatly increase the risk of injury in a collision. There is a wide array of published reports about the hazards associated with seatbelt slack, including slack caused by EM Loops. For example, in a report on improper belt use, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety noted that belt slack, “can diminish or eliminate the effectiveness [of belts] or even induce serious injuries.” Volkswagen, Mercedes, and Toyota have warned about the hazards of seatbelt slack. Mercedes and Toyota have each described in detail how seatbelt retractors could be designed to provide comfortable belt fit without the hazards of slack. A 1988 National Transportation Safety Board report consisting of a case study of 167 automobile crashes found that when slack was present in the belt system, “the opportunity for a degraded level of occupant protection exists.” Given the reduced performance of seatbelts when slack is introduced and the dangers of slack, it is no surprise that most owner’s manuals instruct drivers to pull up on the shoulder portion of the belt to ensure that there is no extra slack in the lap belt.

General Motors has issued several recalls related to EM loops. For example, in 2002, General Motors issued Recall03V117, stating that the EM loop in the driver’s seatbelt buckle assembly introduced as much as 10 inches of slack into the belt in a crash, which could result in partial or complete ejection of a belted driver in a rollover. The recall covered the 1997 Chevrolet Blazer, GMC Jimmy, and Oldsmobile Bravada. To correct this condition the seatbelt assemblies were replaced with a design that did not contain an EM loop. According to GM, the recall was initiated based on claims in which belted occupants were ejected in rollovers.

In 1979, NHTSA proposed an outright ban on seatbelt slack-inducing devices such as window shade devices. Two years later, NHTSA issued a rule to “urge manufacturers to voluntarily limit the amount of slack that can be introduced in their manual belt systems.” In November of 1987, NHTSA issued another ruling, this time subjecting manual seatbelts to dynamic testing, and again expressing concern about seatbelt tension-relieving devices and their potential for increased occupant injury.

Given the dangers of seatbelt slack, it is no surprise that automotive manufacturers provide safety components that have the sole purpose of reducing of reducing seatbelt slack – just the opposite of what the EM loop does. For example, seatbelt pretensioners retract and preload the seatbelt during the first few milliseconds of a crash to compensate for any slack or spool-out. A number of automotive manufacturers feature weblocks, which are webbing clamps that eliminate any spool-out of the webbing stored on the retractor spindle, either by clamping at the retractor or at the D-ring. The purpose of these devices is to reduce as much as possible seatbelt slack in a collisional rollover, because automotive manufacturers are in agreement that seatbelt slack reduces performance of seatbelts and subjects the wearer to partial or complete ejection.

As a result of these studies and reports, many manufacturers have removed seatbelt systems with energy management loops from current models; however, many cars on the road today still have these systems, and many manufacturers have vehicles on the road that contain both EM loops and pretensioners that actually work against each other in a collision.

In addition to automotive restraint defect cases, our law firm customarily reviews cases involving the following causes of action and products:

  • Ace Inhibitor cases
  • Actonel cases
  • Airbag-related injuries
  • Arava (rheumatoid arthritis drug)
  • Aquatic injuries
  • Asbestos exposure
  • Bard/Davol Composix Hernia “Mesh Patch”
  • Benzene exposure
  • Bextra cases
  • Boniva cases
  • Brake Malfunction
  • Brake-Shift Interlock cases
  • Broker Malfeasance
  • Celebrex cases
  • Chevy S-10 Blazer cases
  • Child Car Seats
  • Child Restraint Systems
  • Class Action
  • Crashworthiness cases
  • Creosote Exposure
  • Door Latches
  • Drilling rigs
  • 18-wheelers and heavy trucks
  • Electronic Stability Control (ESC) cases
  • “Energy Management Loop” cases
  • Fen-Phen
  • 15-Passenger van cases
  • Firestone tires
  • Ford Bronco II cases
  • Ford Explorer Cases
  • Fosomax cases
  • Fraud
  • Fuel System integrity
  • Guidant Pacemakers
  • Helmet cases
  • Head restraint cases
  • Honda Passport cases
  • Isuzu Amigo cases
  • Isuzu Rodeo cases
  • KIA Sportage cases
  • Kugel Mesh Hernia Patches
  • Mass environmental torts
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Meridia cases
  • Mitsubishi
  • Motor vehicle glass
  • Negligence
  • Nursing Home Cases
  • Occupant Restraints
  • Ortho-Evra Contraceptives
  • Park-to-Reverse cases
  • Post-collision fire cases
  • PPA (Phenylpropanolamine)
  • Prosthetic Devices
  • ReNu Contact Lens Solution
  • Rezulin cases
  • Rollover Cases
  • Roof Crush Cases
  • Seat Belt Retractors
  • Stand & seal Grout exposure
  • Seatback Failures cases
  • Seat Design Cases
  • Seatbelt and Buckles
  • Serzone cases
  • Silicosis / Sandblasting
  • Sulzer hip implants
  • SUV rollover cases
  • Suzuki Sidekick/Geo Tracker
  • Tire failure cases
  • Toxic Torts
  • Toyota 4-Runner cases
  • Trailer sway cases
  • Van rollover cases
  • Vioxx cases
  • Welding rod exposure
  • Zyprexa cases

If you have any questions about any particular matter, please do not hesitate in calling.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
We are very glad we called Carabin Shaw after our accident. We now recommend them to everyone.
★★★★★
You want Carabin Shaw on your side after an accident. They were excellent. Valerie S.
★★★★★
In our opinion, no one is better, Carabin Shaw is the Law Firm you want on your side after an accident. Amanda G.
★★★★★
The attorneys and staff went out of their way to help us after our accident. Thank you Carabin Shaw. Melinda F.
★★★★★
We did our research after our accident and chose Carabin Shaw. They were great. Highly recommend. Joel Y.