Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
"B"
EXHIBIT
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK:
X
SUZANNE SCHULMAN AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF BRITTNEY M. SCHULMAN, DECEASED;
ALICIA M. ARUNDEL; OLGA LIPETS; MINDY GRABINA,
AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF AMY
GRABINA, AND MINDY GRABINA, INDIVIDUALLY;
STEVEN BARUCH, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE Index No.: 611214/2015
ESTATE OF LAUREN BARUCH, DECEASED AND MELISSA A. CRAI
STEVEN BARUCH, INDIVIDUALLY; JOELLE DIMONTE;
MELISSA A. CRAI, AND ARTHUR A. BELLI, JR.,
AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF STEPHANIE
BELLI, DECEASED, AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
THE ESTATE OF STEPHANIE BELLI,
AFFIDAVIT OF
Plaintiffs, JAMES PUGH, PH.D., P.E.
-against-
ULTIMATE CLASS LIMOUSINE, INC., CARLOS PINO,
ROMEO DIMON MARINE SERVICE, INC., STEVEN
ROMEO, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND COUNTY OF
SUFFOLK, CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC., D/B/A
1-5"
ROYALE LIMOUSINE AND "XYZ COMPANIES
NAME BEING FICTITIOUS BUT INTENDED TO BE THE
REMANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND/OR SELLERS
OF THE 2007 LINCOLN TOWN CAR STRETCH LIMOUSINE
INVOLVED IN THE COLLISION,
Defendants.
JAMES PUGH, PH.D., P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am a not a party to this litigation.I have been requested by the attorneys
representing the eight occupants of the subject limousine, and specifically the attorney
representing the plaintiff Melissa A. Crai, to make thisaffidavit to detennine the effect
of various safety systems in the subject limousine on the mitigation of injuriesand
prevention of deaths of the four plaintiffs in the above-cited action, including my
1
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
investigation and findings. This affidavit specifically addresses the injuries and
associated analysis for the plaintiffMelissa A. Crai.
2. Routinely traveling between New York City and eastern Long Island, I also
routinely have driven through the subject intersection at County Route 48 and Depot
Lane, Southold, New York, approximately once per week for years before the accident
and continuing through the period when trafficcontrols and lane changes were made at
that intersection. I am therefore thoroughly familiar with the site ofthe accident. On
October 22, 2019, I inspected the 2007 Lincoln Town Car limousine bearing Vehicle
Identification Number (VIN) 1L1FM88W87Y616205 and the 2005 Dodge Dakota
pickup truck bearing VIN 1D7HW58N55S227605 to analyze the response of the crash
limousine to collision forces applied to the passenger side of the crash limousine by the
truck on July 18, 2015. The inspection of the limousine and truck which were performed
at the Suffolk County Police Department impound facilityin Westhampton, New York.
The purpose of my examination, inspection, and analysis was to determine the structural
integrity associated with the modification from a passenger car to a limousine, and the
relationship of the lack of structural integrity to the biomechanics of the nine occupants
of the limousine at the time of the accident. My investigation included examination and
analysis of the modified design, modes of failure, analysis of the joinery, and
measurement of the damage sustained by both vehicles. I also examined the side impact
bar that had been removed from the limousine. That inspection was on February 14,
2020, in Huntington, New York. These two inspections have allowed me to confirm the
findings reported by Jeffrey Lange in his affidavitdated November 11, 2022. The
accident occurred on July 18, 2015, at approximately 5:15 pm, on County Route 48 at the
2
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
intersection with Depot Lane, Southold, New York, and involved a 2005 Dodge Dakota
pickup truck operated by Mr. Steven Romeo and a 2007 Lincoln Town Car converted
into a stretch limousine operated by Mr. Carlos Pino. Eight unrestrained young women
were in the rear seating positions of the limousine. As the limousine was in the process
of making a U-tum to proceed westbound on County Route 48, the pickup broadsided the
limousine almost in the dead center of the limousine, The data recorder in the airbag
module in the limousine indicated an impact of 20 g's, and the impact speed of the
pickup truck was approximately 50 mph. The accident reconstruction by Mr. Gregory
Stephens as appears in his affidavit dated August 29, 2022, revealed a delta-V for the
limousine of 20 mph with a principal direction of force (PDOF) of 90 degrees, and a peak
lateralacceleration of 13.9 g's. My inspection revealed significant intrusion of the
pickup truck into the passenger's side of the limousine, and very littledeformation to the
front of the pickup truck. Examination of the pickup truck without any additional
information would lead one tobelieve that this vehicle did not suffer a major frontal
impact, and itsrelatively intactcondition was dramatic relative to the extensive and deep
intrusion damage to the limousine, surely indicating that something was amiss. What
was amiss and missing from the limousine was any functioning resistance of the
limousine to side impact because the front of the pickup truck hitwhat was essentially an
expendable crash cushion similar to the crushable barriers protecting vehicles from hard
impacts against Jersey barriers at exitson superhighways.
3. I,James Pugh, PH.D., P.E., am a forensic automotive engineer performing
accident investigation and vehicle analysis for over 30 years. In brief,I am a licensed
professional engineer in New York State and have performed over 5,000 investigations
3
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
involving various vehicles and the manifestations of defects, malfunctions, and collisions.
I have been accepted as an expert and have provided testimony in the Districtand
Supreme Courts of New York as well as Long Island for plaintiffs and defendants in civil
and criminal matters regarding various issues of engineering and motor vehicle accidents
and safety. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and a Doctor of
Philosophy degree in Biomedical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of
(MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am the president and director of Inter-
Technology
City Testing & Consulting Corporation, a forensic engineering fmn specializing in
analysis of automotive accidents, injury causation, and injury prevention. I have
consulted with numerous federal and stateagencies, including the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Accident Sampling System
(NASS), both agencies of the Department of Transportation of the federal government, as
well as with assistantdistrict attorneys of the City of New York and boroughs, as well as
Westchester County, and various statehighway departments including New York State
on highway accidents. I have performed full-scale crash tests at Calspan, Buffalo, New
York. As a recognized authority on automotive crashworthiness and operator safety, I
have been invited and have appeared on national networks as a consumer advocate to
increase the safety of motor vehicles.
4. My analysis and opinions are rendered to a reasonable degree of certainty in
science, engineering, biomechanics, ergonomics, and occupant safety. The bases for
these opinions are contained the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's),
and the preambles to the specific FMVSS's cited. The standard is FMVSS 208 -
primary
Occupant Crash Protection, which covers in detailthose factors thatprevent injuries and
4
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
deaths in motor vehicle accidents, the requirements necessary to be incorporated into
motor vehicles to prevent injuriesand deaths in motor vehicle accidents, and the testing
that has been done and should be done to confirm that the motor vehicles comply with the
standards. The severity and specifies of those testsspecified in FMVSS 208 provide
quantitative markers for the types of accidents in which proper safety systems would
reliably prevent deaths and injuries. Itmust be emphasized, however, that the FMVSS's
are MINIMAL standards which are typically exceeded by manufacturers, as they have
found that exceeding the requirements of the standards is economical, feasible, and inthe
interestsof their customers, An e ample isthe manufacturers exceeding the crash
survivability requirements mandat by the FMVSS's, as demonstrated by the National
Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Test
Reports showing at leasta 5 mph elta-V survival severity greater than that mandated by
the FMVSS's.
5. The purpose of my examin tionof the vehicles was to evaluate the crash
limousine to determine why itresponded in the manner itdid to the collision forces and
how the design and construction c ntributed to the collision response. My analysis
considered the structural integrity of the crash limousine and why and how itdid not
protect the occupants as itcould have during the collision. In addition, my purpose was
to address the construction and design issues relating to increasing crashworthiness in
multiple-occupant vehicles such as the subject limousine to prevent or otherwise limitthe
incidence of injuries and fatalities.
6. Based on my physical examination of the vehicles, I confirmed that thiswas a
side impact collision that resulted in substantial intrusion of the truck into the passenger
5
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
compartment of the crash limousine. My investigation revealed thatthe side impact
protection system of the crash limousine failed due toa number of factors associated with
the design modifications and implementation of those modifications as performed by
CABOT, who converted the subject vehicle from a passenger car into a stretch limousine.
7. Itmust be emphasized that such limousines are intended for high-occupancy,
which in essence is theirraison d'etre,and they are habitually and routinely driven with
multiple occupants in the rear seating positions. Therefore, the manufacturers and
converters have a special duty to protect the occupants, much more so than the
manufacturer of the basic vehicle thatwas stretched and converted to a limousine. This
isconsistent with, for example, converters who transform production sedans into
convertibles, with the understanding and need to strengthen the unibody to accommodate
the conversion and topreserve the rigidity of the passenger cage as a space frame
originally and strengthened to convert to a convertible to adequate resist intrusion in
accidents.
8. Crashworthiness is defined as the ability of a motor vehicle to protect occupants
against death and injuries in a FORESEEABLE collision of REASONABLE severity. A
t-bone type side collision such as occurred in the subject accident is clearly
FORESEEABLE, because the federal government in FMVSS 208 has mandated
protection in side impact, and specifies a testfor motor vehicles simulating a t-bone-type
collision. FMVSS 208 has established a delta-V in a rigidbarrier collision at a speed of
30 mph, which is a delta-V of slightly greater than 30 mph due toelastic rebound of the
vehicle from the barrier. Therefore the federal government has deemed a delta-V of 30 to
33 mph as REASONABLE. The delta-V reported as a result of the police investigation
6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
was approximately 20 mph for the limousine, much lower than the 33 mph
REASONABLE delta-V established by the federal government in the FMVSS's.
9. FMVSS 208 specifies requirements for side impact crashworthiness, as follows,
in §5.2 Lateral Moving Barrier Crash Test: "Impact to a vehicle laterallyon either side
by a barrier moving at 20 mph under the applicable conditions of §8. The test dummy
specified in §8.1.8 positioned in the frontoutboard designated seating position adjacent to
standard."
the impacted side shall meet the injury criteria of §6.2 and 6.3 of this Further,
§6.1 states the following: "All portions of the testdummy shall be contained within the
compartment."
outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger This testfor side crashworthiness
has remarkable similarities to the pickup truck hitting the side of the limousine with a
delta-V of 20 mph, in part because of themassive and undeformable nature of the moving
barrier, because the pickup is deformable and should have emshed commensurately ifthe
space frame of the limousine had been adequate, and in part because of the weight
discrepancy between the weight of the limousine and the weight of the pickup truck. The
police Collision Reconstruction reports a curb weight for the limousine as 6,930 pounds
and the pickup truck as 5,030 pounds. Although the FMVSS 208 specified test
requirements for side impact are less severe than the FMVSS 208 specified test
requirements for frontal impact, there is nothing to prevent manufacturers and converters
to design and build a vehicle thatwould satisfy and/or exceed the frontal impact
requirements of FMVSS 208, cited above in §8.
10. In all vehicles, there must be a side impact safety/protection system that prevents
and/or should reduce intrusion intothe passenger compartment of an opposing vehicle
during a side impact. Side impact protection is a system of components and connections
7
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
that includes the side impact intrusion beam, vertical pillars(labeled front to rear "A",
"B", etc.),roof structure, rocker panel/floor structure, and body to frame mounting. The
effectiveness of the side impact protection system isa function of the design and integrity
of the crash energy management system. The resistance to side impact is a resultof the
frame"
design and construction of a "space which is a three-dimensional structure much
like a geodesic dome which resists deformation in alldirections, and which preserves the
space"
occupant "safe or area in which the occupants are seated.
11. My own examination of the crash limousine side impact protection components
revealed that the anti-intrusion beam was not properly secured to the vehicle pillars
during construction and the poor welding was observed not only on the intrusion beam
but was found in other areas of the vehicle construction. Given that the anti-
primary
intrusion component of the limousine failed due todefective welding, that the limousine
was not equipped with airbags in the rear seating area, was not equipped with additional
energy-absorbing materials within the outer skin of the vehicle to reduce the impact
forces from an impacting vehicle such as the truck, and the occupants were not utilizing
the restraints,the rear seating area of the limousine was reduced essentially to an
unsupervised adult playpen in which anything goes, and, as long as the playpen was not
on the road and exposed to oncoming vehicles, was safe enough. However, when the
vehicle was on the road, itwas a disaster waiting to happen.
12. The basic principles of ensuring that a vehicle isadequately crashworthy, after
the impact has been deemed foreseeable and of reasonable severity, which was the case
for the limousine in the subject accident, are the following, covered in §13 through §17.
8
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
13. Regarding the space frame, which isthe primary and most significant component
for adequate crashworthiness, the occupant compartment must not collapse or intrude into
passengers'
the safe zone, meaning that the space frame should be rigid enough not to
deform and strike the occupants directly. This requires, as identified above in this
affidavit,the design and construction of a space frame of adequate rigidity. An alternate
system to significantly increase the robustness of the space frame isto seat the occupants
in bench seats facing either forwards or rearwards. Such bench seats provide a means of
transverse stiffening of the space frame through the structure of the bench frames
themselves. Two sets of facing bench seats accommodating three occupants in each
bench seat could have feasibly and economically been installed in thesubject limousine,
which would have provided two separate party areas inside the rear of the limousine. A
rigid space frame has been found to provide excellent protection for race car drivers who
experience high-g crashes with minimal or no injuries.
passengers'
14. The interior areas of the compartment must be adequately padded
and covered, and sharp and hard areas must be eliminated to that, ifthere is compromise
of the space frame and itcontacts the occupants, the contact will not be lacerative or
crushing, but will give and absorb energy in and of itself.
15. The interior padding described in §14 above isgreatly assisted and achieved
through the installation of airbags, both frontal, side, and rollover triggered. Such airbags
when deployed will transmit any contact with the passengers over a large area of the
body, significantly reducing the unit loads, and preventing injuries and and
fatalities,
preventing unbelted occupants fmm colliding with each other and colliding with the
interior structures of the limousine. Airbags are considered passive restraints and, as
9
..
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
such, do not require anything on the part of the occupants to achieve protection from
restraints"
injury, and are also intended to be so called "supplemental to augment and
increase the protection afforded through the use of seatbelts. Seatbelts were mandated to
be installed in motor vehicles by the federalgovernment in 1968. General Motors, in a
pilotprogram to demonstrate the effectiveness of airbags, did a study in 1973 involving
production vehicles with and were so confident of the injury-
fitting airbags, they
protection afforded by airbags that they did not even installseatbelts in the vehicles. The
resultsof the study were confirmation of the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility
of airbags. However, passive restraintsdid not become standard featutes in motor
vehicles until 1983, when FMVSS 208 required passive restraints to be installed in motor
vehicles. Automatic seatbelts satisfied the requirement, but itbecame apparent, through
efforts by consumer advocates including myself, that those automatic seatbelts were
inferior to non-automatic seatbelts in theirabilities to prevent deaths and injuries.
Therefore, itbecame apparent around the year 2000 that the airbags were the most
economical and feasible means of satisfying the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS
208, the totality of which iscontained in approximately 100 pages, and the preamble to
FMVSS 208 comprises approximately three times that,or approximately 300 pages. The
contents of this affidavit are intended to summarize the materials contained in those
approximate 400 pages as they relate to the subject vehicle and tothe subject accident.
FMVSS became codified as law only after extensive discussions, debates, compromises
and conferences took place between representatives of the federal government, state
governments, local governments, consumer advocates, advocates for the automotive
industry including converters of basic vehicle for specific applications, representations of
10
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
insurance companies, and any and allothers having a financial stake in the legislation.
Certain proposed requirements were necessarily watered down, such as the requirement
that conversion vehicles, ifproduced in sufficiently small numbers, be exempt from some
of the regulations. This, however, does not preclude converters from economically and
feasibly applying tools from the established tool box so thattheir converted vehicles have
the requisite features to safely serve their intended functions, which isthe basis for the
requirements of product liability. The Lincoln Town Car was certified as complying with
allapplicable FMVSS's in effectat the time of manufacture, which included side impact
requirements, and the converter produced a vehicle that was NOT in compliance with
those same standards with which the basic vehicle complied.
16. The area between the inner and outer panels o the rearportion of the limousine
should have been filled with energy-absorbing material such as expanded polystyrene
foam (EPS). An adequate width of EPS, estimated and suggested to be at least6 inches,
would significantly increase the side crashworthiness of the limousine.
17. Occupants must be restrained with three-point combination lap and shoulder
hamess seatbelts at the very least,with combination emergency locking and inertial
retractor mechanisms. Warnings and advisories to wear the seatbelts must be posted
prominently and with color alterting features, and the usage of the seatbelts must be
enforced the driver. Seatbelts ensure that the occupants experience the entire ride-
by
down of any compromise in the space frame and rollsthe forces down to non-injury
producing levels. Of course, seatbelt usage must be mandated and enforced by a
responsible adult,namely the driver of the limousine, who necessarily isin charge of the
11
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
limousine. Without such supervision and mandating of seatbelt usage, the rear passenger
compartment of the limousine is reduced again to an unsupervised adult playpen.
18. When a motor vehicle such as the subject limousine is exposed or involved in a
foreseeable accident of reasonable severity with injuries sustained by an occupant or
occupants, itis invariably because of violation of at leastone of the requirements
detailed in §13 through §17 immediately preceding thisparagraph.
19. The subject limousine, however, lacked ALL of the required systems mandated
for adequate crashworthiness, and, even ifthe construction and welding were not
defective, there STILL would have been bodily damage to the rear occupants. The
subject limousine therefore was totally inadequate with regard to crashworthiness,
particularly in a side impact such as occurred in the subject accident.
20. The converters of the standard Lincoln Town Car into a stretch limousine had a
large tool box at theirdisposal, allof which had proven to be effective in ensuring that
the limousine would be crashworthy, and they failed to open the tool box and failedto
utilizethe tools in that box, allof which are enumerated in §13 through §17 of this
affidavit.
21. Following on §20 above, and per the affidavit of Lange dated November 11,
2022, from which I am paraphrasing as follows in this paragraph: The side impact
protection system in the subject limousine relieson an anti-intrusion beam that, in part,
"B" "C"
holds the and structural pillars in position. The anti-intrusion beam failed to
reduce intrusion and was just pushed out of the way, rather than having performed in the
way itwas designed and intended. The anti-intrusion beam was defectively attached to
12
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
the limousine structure. The welding was of poor quality, incomplete, and insufficient,
Several of the filletwelds used to join the brackets securing the anti-intrusion beam and
pillars for the stretched portion of the crash limousine exhibited what is known as a lack
of penetration. also known as a lack of fusion defects which occurs when the welding
procedure does not result in a homogeneous seam as discussed above. Because of
welding defects (inadequate welding) similar to those that caused the detachment of the
anti-intrusion beam, parts of the rocker panel became detached. The rocker panel is a
significant part of the crash energy management system which isintegral to the side
impact protection system. In the event of a side impact collision,intrusion prevention
and/or mitigation and crash energy management are key safety issues. To protect the
occupants during a collision, crash energy has to be managed and diverted around the
passenger compartment. In this case, the structure of the limousine was not connected
sufficiently, and the energy management system, altered from the original manufacturer's
design, failed. The rocker panel was inadequately mounted and contributed to the failure
of the anti-intrusion system and the inabilityof the energy management system to redirect
collision forces. Other issues concerning the anti-intrusion system included the deformity
of the flooring which moved from itsmounting position inward toward the vehicle
longitudinal centerline. This occurred, in part, because of an improper design: the two
mounts securing the flooring were improperly placed far apart and away from the pillars
that there was too much stress applied to them to stay in place regardless of how they
were welded. Tack or spot welds are a form of temporary welding to hold components
together in anticipation of more substantial welding or other form of bonding. Tack
welds are used in the fabrication process for positioning items so that one can get them in
13
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
the rightplace before making a permanent, homogenous weld, thatcannot be taken apart.
The tack weld ismerely one step beyond using a clamp to join two items. The essence of
quality and non-defective welding isto achieve a weld that,when the welded item is
overloaded, the weld itselfdoes not fail,but the associated metallic components fail.My
examination of the mcker panel on the passenger side indicated the welds were consistent
with tack welds and not sufficient to properly secure and hold the rocker panel together.
The lack of structural integrity in the rocker panel contributed to the failure of the side
impact protection system. In the subject limousine, the rocker panel was not connected to
the associated structures and was found to be loose and free-floating loosely, and the
welding on the modified portion of the rocker panel was of such poor quality, inadequate
welding, penetration, and other weld related defects thatitresulted in the compromise of
the rocker panel; thus contributing to the failureof the sideimpact protection system.
The section of the rocker panel that had come apart at the welds revealed insufficient
penetration, meaning that the metals were not joined sufficiently. These welds not only
failed to replicate the original equipment manufacturer joinery, but these welds failedto
replicate the quantity and quality of welds in the manufacturer's original construction.
Aside from the welding defects, I also determined that them was no additional secondary
structure, such as floor beams or mof beams to redirect crash energy and control the
positioning of the posts. There were no additional lateral beams installed in the floor to
control the positioning of the pillarsas the floor rolled upwards. When the rocker panel
and the mid-compartment flooring were rolled away from the substructure of the crash
limousine, these components were no longer a part of the anti-intrusion system. This
reduced the abilityof the limousine to resistthe intruding forces, to distribute the
14
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
collision energy to other areas, or to allow the crash limousine to possibly move further
on the roadway as part of the energy absorbing process. Itallowed the truck to move
inward, into the crash limousine's passenger compartment, and topush the pillarinto the
interior components, which interacted in a fatal and injury-productive manner with the
occupants. My own inspection showed that the side impact protection system failed in
part due to improper/incomplete construction assembly including defective welding, lack
of additional structure reinforcements in the roof and other areas, and insufficient
securing of the body to the structure due to inadequate mount connections, quality, and
quantity, and failure of the rocker panel system. All of this significantly compromised
the ability of the passenger area to react as a space frame as mandated for adequate
crashworthiness in paragraph 12 above. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of
professional engineering certainty, thatthe side impact protection and anti-intrusion
system in the crash limousine failed. The failure was in part the result of poor-quality
welding ("woefully inadequate and unacceptable, or otherwise improper welding to
secure the anti-intrusion beam. Itreduced the rigidity of the structure,and as a direct
result,itdid not keep the pillarsin place. Itis also my opinion, within a reasonable
degree of professional certainty, that the side impact protection and anti-
engineering
intrusion system in the crash limousine failed, in part, because the midbody mounts used
by CABOT in the modification process were inadequate in quantity and improper in
position and number. The design should have called for more mounts and for placing
additional mounts closer to the pillars since that is an area of structural integrity. I am
therefore in agreement with the findings and opinions of Lange, as Ihave done my own
inspections of the vehicles and vehicle systems and am well-trained in structural
15
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022
engineering, welding, and metallurgy. The welding in the limousine surely violated the
standard of the American Welding Society (AWS), in additional to those FMVSS's
relating to acceptable joinery.
22. The contents of the §21, the immediately prior section of thisaffidavit, confirms
that there was NO FUNCTIONING SPACE FRAME OR SAFETY CAGE PRESENT IN
THE LIMOUSINE. Therefore, the primary crashworthiness requirement, preservation of
the occupant safe space, could not be achieved in any reasonable form or fashion. Had
the requirements of §l3 through §17 of this affidavit been in place in the limousine, allof
which were economical feasible at the time of manufacture of the base vehicle and its
subsequent conversion to a stretchvehicle in 2007 or later, ALL OF THE OCCUPANTS
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 "B" EXHIBIT FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: X SUZANNE SCHULMAN AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BRITTNEY M. SCHULMAN, DECEASED; ALICIA M. ARUNDEL; OLGA LIPETS; MINDY GRABINA, AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF AMY GRABINA, AND MINDY GRABINA, INDIVIDUALLY; STEVEN BARUCH, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE Index No.: 611214/2015 ESTATE OF LAUREN BARUCH, DECEASED AND MELISSA A. CRAI STEVEN BARUCH, INDIVIDUALLY; JOELLE DIMONTE; MELISSA A. CRAI, AND ARTHUR A. BELLI, JR., AS PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF STEPHANIE BELLI, DECEASED, AND AS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF STEPHANIE BELLI, AFFIDAVIT OF Plaintiffs, JAMES PUGH, PH.D., P.E. -against- ULTIMATE CLASS LIMOUSINE, INC., CARLOS PINO, ROMEO DIMON MARINE SERVICE, INC., STEVEN ROMEO, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, CABOT COACH BUILDERS, INC., D/B/A 1-5" ROYALE LIMOUSINE AND "XYZ COMPANIES NAME BEING FICTITIOUS BUT INTENDED TO BE THE REMANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS AND/OR SELLERS OF THE 2007 LINCOLN TOWN CAR STRETCH LIMOUSINE INVOLVED IN THE COLLISION, Defendants. JAMES PUGH, PH.D., P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a not a party to this litigation.I have been requested by the attorneys representing the eight occupants of the subject limousine, and specifically the attorney representing the plaintiff Melissa A. Crai, to make thisaffidavit to detennine the effect of various safety systems in the subject limousine on the mitigation of injuriesand prevention of deaths of the four plaintiffs in the above-cited action, including my 1 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 investigation and findings. This affidavit specifically addresses the injuries and associated analysis for the plaintiffMelissa A. Crai. 2. Routinely traveling between New York City and eastern Long Island, I also routinely have driven through the subject intersection at County Route 48 and Depot Lane, Southold, New York, approximately once per week for years before the accident and continuing through the period when trafficcontrols and lane changes were made at that intersection. I am therefore thoroughly familiar with the site ofthe accident. On October 22, 2019, I inspected the 2007 Lincoln Town Car limousine bearing Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) 1L1FM88W87Y616205 and the 2005 Dodge Dakota pickup truck bearing VIN 1D7HW58N55S227605 to analyze the response of the crash limousine to collision forces applied to the passenger side of the crash limousine by the truck on July 18, 2015. The inspection of the limousine and truck which were performed at the Suffolk County Police Department impound facilityin Westhampton, New York. The purpose of my examination, inspection, and analysis was to determine the structural integrity associated with the modification from a passenger car to a limousine, and the relationship of the lack of structural integrity to the biomechanics of the nine occupants of the limousine at the time of the accident. My investigation included examination and analysis of the modified design, modes of failure, analysis of the joinery, and measurement of the damage sustained by both vehicles. I also examined the side impact bar that had been removed from the limousine. That inspection was on February 14, 2020, in Huntington, New York. These two inspections have allowed me to confirm the findings reported by Jeffrey Lange in his affidavitdated November 11, 2022. The accident occurred on July 18, 2015, at approximately 5:15 pm, on County Route 48 at the 2 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 intersection with Depot Lane, Southold, New York, and involved a 2005 Dodge Dakota pickup truck operated by Mr. Steven Romeo and a 2007 Lincoln Town Car converted into a stretch limousine operated by Mr. Carlos Pino. Eight unrestrained young women were in the rear seating positions of the limousine. As the limousine was in the process of making a U-tum to proceed westbound on County Route 48, the pickup broadsided the limousine almost in the dead center of the limousine, The data recorder in the airbag module in the limousine indicated an impact of 20 g's, and the impact speed of the pickup truck was approximately 50 mph. The accident reconstruction by Mr. Gregory Stephens as appears in his affidavit dated August 29, 2022, revealed a delta-V for the limousine of 20 mph with a principal direction of force (PDOF) of 90 degrees, and a peak lateralacceleration of 13.9 g's. My inspection revealed significant intrusion of the pickup truck into the passenger's side of the limousine, and very littledeformation to the front of the pickup truck. Examination of the pickup truck without any additional information would lead one tobelieve that this vehicle did not suffer a major frontal impact, and itsrelatively intactcondition was dramatic relative to the extensive and deep intrusion damage to the limousine, surely indicating that something was amiss. What was amiss and missing from the limousine was any functioning resistance of the limousine to side impact because the front of the pickup truck hitwhat was essentially an expendable crash cushion similar to the crushable barriers protecting vehicles from hard impacts against Jersey barriers at exitson superhighways. 3. I,James Pugh, PH.D., P.E., am a forensic automotive engineer performing accident investigation and vehicle analysis for over 30 years. In brief,I am a licensed professional engineer in New York State and have performed over 5,000 investigations 3 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 involving various vehicles and the manifestations of defects, malfunctions, and collisions. I have been accepted as an expert and have provided testimony in the Districtand Supreme Courts of New York as well as Long Island for plaintiffs and defendants in civil and criminal matters regarding various issues of engineering and motor vehicle accidents and safety. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in engineering and a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Biomedical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am the president and director of Inter- Technology City Testing & Consulting Corporation, a forensic engineering fmn specializing in analysis of automotive accidents, injury causation, and injury prevention. I have consulted with numerous federal and stateagencies, including the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the National Accident Sampling System (NASS), both agencies of the Department of Transportation of the federal government, as well as with assistantdistrict attorneys of the City of New York and boroughs, as well as Westchester County, and various statehighway departments including New York State on highway accidents. I have performed full-scale crash tests at Calspan, Buffalo, New York. As a recognized authority on automotive crashworthiness and operator safety, I have been invited and have appeared on national networks as a consumer advocate to increase the safety of motor vehicles. 4. My analysis and opinions are rendered to a reasonable degree of certainty in science, engineering, biomechanics, ergonomics, and occupant safety. The bases for these opinions are contained the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), and the preambles to the specific FMVSS's cited. The standard is FMVSS 208 - primary Occupant Crash Protection, which covers in detailthose factors thatprevent injuries and 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 deaths in motor vehicle accidents, the requirements necessary to be incorporated into motor vehicles to prevent injuriesand deaths in motor vehicle accidents, and the testing that has been done and should be done to confirm that the motor vehicles comply with the standards. The severity and specifies of those testsspecified in FMVSS 208 provide quantitative markers for the types of accidents in which proper safety systems would reliably prevent deaths and injuries. Itmust be emphasized, however, that the FMVSS's are MINIMAL standards which are typically exceeded by manufacturers, as they have found that exceeding the requirements of the standards is economical, feasible, and inthe interestsof their customers, An e ample isthe manufacturers exceeding the crash survivability requirements mandat by the FMVSS's, as demonstrated by the National Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Test Reports showing at leasta 5 mph elta-V survival severity greater than that mandated by the FMVSS's. 5. The purpose of my examin tionof the vehicles was to evaluate the crash limousine to determine why itresponded in the manner itdid to the collision forces and how the design and construction c ntributed to the collision response. My analysis considered the structural integrity of the crash limousine and why and how itdid not protect the occupants as itcould have during the collision. In addition, my purpose was to address the construction and design issues relating to increasing crashworthiness in multiple-occupant vehicles such as the subject limousine to prevent or otherwise limitthe incidence of injuries and fatalities. 6. Based on my physical examination of the vehicles, I confirmed that thiswas a side impact collision that resulted in substantial intrusion of the truck into the passenger 5 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 compartment of the crash limousine. My investigation revealed thatthe side impact protection system of the crash limousine failed due toa number of factors associated with the design modifications and implementation of those modifications as performed by CABOT, who converted the subject vehicle from a passenger car into a stretch limousine. 7. Itmust be emphasized that such limousines are intended for high-occupancy, which in essence is theirraison d'etre,and they are habitually and routinely driven with multiple occupants in the rear seating positions. Therefore, the manufacturers and converters have a special duty to protect the occupants, much more so than the manufacturer of the basic vehicle thatwas stretched and converted to a limousine. This isconsistent with, for example, converters who transform production sedans into convertibles, with the understanding and need to strengthen the unibody to accommodate the conversion and topreserve the rigidity of the passenger cage as a space frame originally and strengthened to convert to a convertible to adequate resist intrusion in accidents. 8. Crashworthiness is defined as the ability of a motor vehicle to protect occupants against death and injuries in a FORESEEABLE collision of REASONABLE severity. A t-bone type side collision such as occurred in the subject accident is clearly FORESEEABLE, because the federal government in FMVSS 208 has mandated protection in side impact, and specifies a testfor motor vehicles simulating a t-bone-type collision. FMVSS 208 has established a delta-V in a rigidbarrier collision at a speed of 30 mph, which is a delta-V of slightly greater than 30 mph due toelastic rebound of the vehicle from the barrier. Therefore the federal government has deemed a delta-V of 30 to 33 mph as REASONABLE. The delta-V reported as a result of the police investigation 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 was approximately 20 mph for the limousine, much lower than the 33 mph REASONABLE delta-V established by the federal government in the FMVSS's. 9. FMVSS 208 specifies requirements for side impact crashworthiness, as follows, in §5.2 Lateral Moving Barrier Crash Test: "Impact to a vehicle laterallyon either side by a barrier moving at 20 mph under the applicable conditions of §8. The test dummy specified in §8.1.8 positioned in the frontoutboard designated seating position adjacent to standard." the impacted side shall meet the injury criteria of §6.2 and 6.3 of this Further, §6.1 states the following: "All portions of the testdummy shall be contained within the compartment." outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger This testfor side crashworthiness has remarkable similarities to the pickup truck hitting the side of the limousine with a delta-V of 20 mph, in part because of themassive and undeformable nature of the moving barrier, because the pickup is deformable and should have emshed commensurately ifthe space frame of the limousine had been adequate, and in part because of the weight discrepancy between the weight of the limousine and the weight of the pickup truck. The police Collision Reconstruction reports a curb weight for the limousine as 6,930 pounds and the pickup truck as 5,030 pounds. Although the FMVSS 208 specified test requirements for side impact are less severe than the FMVSS 208 specified test requirements for frontal impact, there is nothing to prevent manufacturers and converters to design and build a vehicle thatwould satisfy and/or exceed the frontal impact requirements of FMVSS 208, cited above in §8. 10. In all vehicles, there must be a side impact safety/protection system that prevents and/or should reduce intrusion intothe passenger compartment of an opposing vehicle during a side impact. Side impact protection is a system of components and connections 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 that includes the side impact intrusion beam, vertical pillars(labeled front to rear "A", "B", etc.),roof structure, rocker panel/floor structure, and body to frame mounting. The effectiveness of the side impact protection system isa function of the design and integrity of the crash energy management system. The resistance to side impact is a resultof the frame" design and construction of a "space which is a three-dimensional structure much like a geodesic dome which resists deformation in alldirections, and which preserves the space" occupant "safe or area in which the occupants are seated. 11. My own examination of the crash limousine side impact protection components revealed that the anti-intrusion beam was not properly secured to the vehicle pillars during construction and the poor welding was observed not only on the intrusion beam but was found in other areas of the vehicle construction. Given that the anti- primary intrusion component of the limousine failed due todefective welding, that the limousine was not equipped with airbags in the rear seating area, was not equipped with additional energy-absorbing materials within the outer skin of the vehicle to reduce the impact forces from an impacting vehicle such as the truck, and the occupants were not utilizing the restraints,the rear seating area of the limousine was reduced essentially to an unsupervised adult playpen in which anything goes, and, as long as the playpen was not on the road and exposed to oncoming vehicles, was safe enough. However, when the vehicle was on the road, itwas a disaster waiting to happen. 12. The basic principles of ensuring that a vehicle isadequately crashworthy, after the impact has been deemed foreseeable and of reasonable severity, which was the case for the limousine in the subject accident, are the following, covered in §13 through §17. 8 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 13. Regarding the space frame, which isthe primary and most significant component for adequate crashworthiness, the occupant compartment must not collapse or intrude into passengers' the safe zone, meaning that the space frame should be rigid enough not to deform and strike the occupants directly. This requires, as identified above in this affidavit,the design and construction of a space frame of adequate rigidity. An alternate system to significantly increase the robustness of the space frame isto seat the occupants in bench seats facing either forwards or rearwards. Such bench seats provide a means of transverse stiffening of the space frame through the structure of the bench frames themselves. Two sets of facing bench seats accommodating three occupants in each bench seat could have feasibly and economically been installed in thesubject limousine, which would have provided two separate party areas inside the rear of the limousine. A rigid space frame has been found to provide excellent protection for race car drivers who experience high-g crashes with minimal or no injuries. passengers' 14. The interior areas of the compartment must be adequately padded and covered, and sharp and hard areas must be eliminated to that, ifthere is compromise of the space frame and itcontacts the occupants, the contact will not be lacerative or crushing, but will give and absorb energy in and of itself. 15. The interior padding described in §14 above isgreatly assisted and achieved through the installation of airbags, both frontal, side, and rollover triggered. Such airbags when deployed will transmit any contact with the passengers over a large area of the body, significantly reducing the unit loads, and preventing injuries and and fatalities, preventing unbelted occupants fmm colliding with each other and colliding with the interior structures of the limousine. Airbags are considered passive restraints and, as 9 .. FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 such, do not require anything on the part of the occupants to achieve protection from restraints" injury, and are also intended to be so called "supplemental to augment and increase the protection afforded through the use of seatbelts. Seatbelts were mandated to be installed in motor vehicles by the federalgovernment in 1968. General Motors, in a pilotprogram to demonstrate the effectiveness of airbags, did a study in 1973 involving production vehicles with and were so confident of the injury- fitting airbags, they protection afforded by airbags that they did not even installseatbelts in the vehicles. The resultsof the study were confirmation of the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of airbags. However, passive restraintsdid not become standard featutes in motor vehicles until 1983, when FMVSS 208 required passive restraints to be installed in motor vehicles. Automatic seatbelts satisfied the requirement, but itbecame apparent, through efforts by consumer advocates including myself, that those automatic seatbelts were inferior to non-automatic seatbelts in theirabilities to prevent deaths and injuries. Therefore, itbecame apparent around the year 2000 that the airbags were the most economical and feasible means of satisfying the passive restraint requirements of FMVSS 208, the totality of which iscontained in approximately 100 pages, and the preamble to FMVSS 208 comprises approximately three times that,or approximately 300 pages. The contents of this affidavit are intended to summarize the materials contained in those approximate 400 pages as they relate to the subject vehicle and tothe subject accident. FMVSS became codified as law only after extensive discussions, debates, compromises and conferences took place between representatives of the federal government, state governments, local governments, consumer advocates, advocates for the automotive industry including converters of basic vehicle for specific applications, representations of 10 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 insurance companies, and any and allothers having a financial stake in the legislation. Certain proposed requirements were necessarily watered down, such as the requirement that conversion vehicles, ifproduced in sufficiently small numbers, be exempt from some of the regulations. This, however, does not preclude converters from economically and feasibly applying tools from the established tool box so thattheir converted vehicles have the requisite features to safely serve their intended functions, which isthe basis for the requirements of product liability. The Lincoln Town Car was certified as complying with allapplicable FMVSS's in effectat the time of manufacture, which included side impact requirements, and the converter produced a vehicle that was NOT in compliance with those same standards with which the basic vehicle complied. 16. The area between the inner and outer panels o the rearportion of the limousine should have been filled with energy-absorbing material such as expanded polystyrene foam (EPS). An adequate width of EPS, estimated and suggested to be at least6 inches, would significantly increase the side crashworthiness of the limousine. 17. Occupants must be restrained with three-point combination lap and shoulder hamess seatbelts at the very least,with combination emergency locking and inertial retractor mechanisms. Warnings and advisories to wear the seatbelts must be posted prominently and with color alterting features, and the usage of the seatbelts must be enforced the driver. Seatbelts ensure that the occupants experience the entire ride- by down of any compromise in the space frame and rollsthe forces down to non-injury producing levels. Of course, seatbelt usage must be mandated and enforced by a responsible adult,namely the driver of the limousine, who necessarily isin charge of the 11 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 limousine. Without such supervision and mandating of seatbelt usage, the rear passenger compartment of the limousine is reduced again to an unsupervised adult playpen. 18. When a motor vehicle such as the subject limousine is exposed or involved in a foreseeable accident of reasonable severity with injuries sustained by an occupant or occupants, itis invariably because of violation of at leastone of the requirements detailed in §13 through §17 immediately preceding thisparagraph. 19. The subject limousine, however, lacked ALL of the required systems mandated for adequate crashworthiness, and, even ifthe construction and welding were not defective, there STILL would have been bodily damage to the rear occupants. The subject limousine therefore was totally inadequate with regard to crashworthiness, particularly in a side impact such as occurred in the subject accident. 20. The converters of the standard Lincoln Town Car into a stretch limousine had a large tool box at theirdisposal, allof which had proven to be effective in ensuring that the limousine would be crashworthy, and they failed to open the tool box and failedto utilizethe tools in that box, allof which are enumerated in §13 through §17 of this affidavit. 21. Following on §20 above, and per the affidavit of Lange dated November 11, 2022, from which I am paraphrasing as follows in this paragraph: The side impact protection system in the subject limousine relieson an anti-intrusion beam that, in part, "B" "C" holds the and structural pillars in position. The anti-intrusion beam failed to reduce intrusion and was just pushed out of the way, rather than having performed in the way itwas designed and intended. The anti-intrusion beam was defectively attached to 12 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 the limousine structure. The welding was of poor quality, incomplete, and insufficient, Several of the filletwelds used to join the brackets securing the anti-intrusion beam and pillars for the stretched portion of the crash limousine exhibited what is known as a lack of penetration. also known as a lack of fusion defects which occurs when the welding procedure does not result in a homogeneous seam as discussed above. Because of welding defects (inadequate welding) similar to those that caused the detachment of the anti-intrusion beam, parts of the rocker panel became detached. The rocker panel is a significant part of the crash energy management system which isintegral to the side impact protection system. In the event of a side impact collision,intrusion prevention and/or mitigation and crash energy management are key safety issues. To protect the occupants during a collision, crash energy has to be managed and diverted around the passenger compartment. In this case, the structure of the limousine was not connected sufficiently, and the energy management system, altered from the original manufacturer's design, failed. The rocker panel was inadequately mounted and contributed to the failure of the anti-intrusion system and the inabilityof the energy management system to redirect collision forces. Other issues concerning the anti-intrusion system included the deformity of the flooring which moved from itsmounting position inward toward the vehicle longitudinal centerline. This occurred, in part, because of an improper design: the two mounts securing the flooring were improperly placed far apart and away from the pillars that there was too much stress applied to them to stay in place regardless of how they were welded. Tack or spot welds are a form of temporary welding to hold components together in anticipation of more substantial welding or other form of bonding. Tack welds are used in the fabrication process for positioning items so that one can get them in 13 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 the rightplace before making a permanent, homogenous weld, thatcannot be taken apart. The tack weld ismerely one step beyond using a clamp to join two items. The essence of quality and non-defective welding isto achieve a weld that,when the welded item is overloaded, the weld itselfdoes not fail,but the associated metallic components fail.My examination of the mcker panel on the passenger side indicated the welds were consistent with tack welds and not sufficient to properly secure and hold the rocker panel together. The lack of structural integrity in the rocker panel contributed to the failure of the side impact protection system. In the subject limousine, the rocker panel was not connected to the associated structures and was found to be loose and free-floating loosely, and the welding on the modified portion of the rocker panel was of such poor quality, inadequate welding, penetration, and other weld related defects thatitresulted in the compromise of the rocker panel; thus contributing to the failureof the sideimpact protection system. The section of the rocker panel that had come apart at the welds revealed insufficient penetration, meaning that the metals were not joined sufficiently. These welds not only failed to replicate the original equipment manufacturer joinery, but these welds failedto replicate the quantity and quality of welds in the manufacturer's original construction. Aside from the welding defects, I also determined that them was no additional secondary structure, such as floor beams or mof beams to redirect crash energy and control the positioning of the posts. There were no additional lateral beams installed in the floor to control the positioning of the pillarsas the floor rolled upwards. When the rocker panel and the mid-compartment flooring were rolled away from the substructure of the crash limousine, these components were no longer a part of the anti-intrusion system. This reduced the abilityof the limousine to resistthe intruding forces, to distribute the 14 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 collision energy to other areas, or to allow the crash limousine to possibly move further on the roadway as part of the energy absorbing process. Itallowed the truck to move inward, into the crash limousine's passenger compartment, and topush the pillarinto the interior components, which interacted in a fatal and injury-productive manner with the occupants. My own inspection showed that the side impact protection system failed in part due to improper/incomplete construction assembly including defective welding, lack of additional structure reinforcements in the roof and other areas, and insufficient securing of the body to the structure due to inadequate mount connections, quality, and quantity, and failure of the rocker panel system. All of this significantly compromised the ability of the passenger area to react as a space frame as mandated for adequate crashworthiness in paragraph 12 above. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, thatthe side impact protection and anti-intrusion system in the crash limousine failed. The failure was in part the result of poor-quality welding ("woefully inadequate and unacceptable, or otherwise improper welding to secure the anti-intrusion beam. Itreduced the rigidity of the structure,and as a direct result,itdid not keep the pillarsin place. Itis also my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional certainty, that the side impact protection and anti- engineering intrusion system in the crash limousine failed, in part, because the midbody mounts used by CABOT in the modification process were inadequate in quantity and improper in position and number. The design should have called for more mounts and for placing additional mounts closer to the pillars since that is an area of structural integrity. I am therefore in agreement with the findings and opinions of Lange, as Ihave done my own inspections of the vehicles and vehicle systems and am well-trained in structural 15 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/2022 11:53 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1193 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2022 engineering, welding, and metallurgy. The welding in the limousine surely violated the standard of the American Welding Society (AWS), in additional to those FMVSS's relating to acceptable joinery. 22. The contents of the §21, the immediately prior section of thisaffidavit, confirms that there was NO FUNCTIONING SPACE FRAME OR SAFETY CAGE PRESENT IN THE LIMOUSINE. Therefore, the primary crashworthiness requirement, preservation of the occupant safe space, could not be achieved in any reasonable form or fashion. Had the requirements of §l3 through §17 of this affidavit been in place in the limousine, allof which were economical feasible at the time of manufacture of the base vehicle and its subsequent conversion to a stretchvehicle in 2007 or later, ALL OF THE OCCUPANTS