Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
"4"
EXHIBIT
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF .
DOC. . NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
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
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 IN
Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION
-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.
---------------- --- X
JEFFREY LANGE, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am a not a party to this litigation. I have been requested by John L. Juliano, Esq.,
the attorney representing the plaintiff, Estate of Brittney Schulman and on behalf of all
plaintiffs in the above captioned action, to make this affidavit to confirm and support the
testimony I gave before the Special Grand Jury on June 21, 2016, and August 16, 2016,
regarding the investigation of this catastrophic limousine collision which occurred on
July 18, 2015; I also provided further testimony on October 19, 2021, pursuant to a "So
1
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
Ordered"
subpoena, regarding my investigation and findings. I did not request or receive
compensation for my time associated with my investigation into this matter or the
subsequent testimony.
2. In May of 2016, I was requested by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office
to examine a 2007 Lincoln Town Car limousine bearing Vehicle Identification Number
(VIN) IL1 FM88W87Y616205 (herein "crash limousine") and a 2005 Dodge Dakota
pickup truck bearing VIN 1D7HW58N55S227605 (herein "truck") 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. This required examinations of the crash
limousine and truck which were performed on June 15, 2016, at the Suffolk County
Police Department impound facility in Westhampton, New York. The purpose of my
examination and analysis was to determine the structural integrity (or lack thereof)
associated with the modification from a passenger car to a limousine. My investigation
included analysis of the modified design and implementation of the modifications
including the construction factors (materials, welding, etc.).
3. I,Jeffrey Lange, 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 involving
various vehicles and the manifestations of defects, malfunctions, and collisions. I have
been accepted as an expert and have provided testimony in the District and 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 Technology degree in Electromechanical Computer
2
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
Engineering Technology and a Master of Science in Forensic Examination. I am the
owner and president of Lange Technical Services, a forensic automotive engineering
firm. I have also presented my methodologies and techniques to members of the Suffolk
County Police Department, the New York City Police Department, U.S. Postal
Inspectors, insurance personnel, and private engineers through various professional
organizations.
4. On June 21, 2016, and then again, on August 17, 2016, I provided testimony to
the Special Grand Jury my findings and opinions regarding the response of the crash
limousine to the collision of July 18, 2015. On September 20, 2016, the Special Grand
Jury empaneled to investigate the July 18, 2015, collision issued itsreport. Excerpts of
my testimony, which include my findings, evaluation, analysis, and opinions concerning
the structural integrity and crash worthiness of the crash limousine involved were
contained in the final Special Grand Jury Report. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1010.
5. The purpose of my examination of 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 contributed to the collision response. My analysis
considered the structural integrity of the crash limousine and why itdid not protect the
occupants as itcould have during the collision. In addition, my purpose was to address
the construction and design issues to "maybe prevent or otherwise limit such an intrusion
future."
and deformity in the (Grand Jury Minutes, June 21, 2016, page 45)
6. Based on my physical examination of the vehicles, I confinned that this was a
side impact collision that resulted in substantial intrusion of the truck into the passenger
3
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
compartment of the crash limousine. My investigation revealed that the side impact
protection system of the crash limousine failed due to a 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. In all vehicles, there is a side impact safety/protection system that prevents or
should reduce intrusion into the passenger compartment of an opposing vehicle during a
side impact (Id @ 48). Side impact protection is a system of components and
connections 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 is a function of the
design and integrity of the crash energy management system.
8. My 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. Indications of poor welding were identified in multiple areas.
Welding is a process where two (2) materials are melted together, and a filleris added to
create one (1) homogeneous seam (Id @ 58). A significant factor in the failure of the
side impact protection system was a lack of proper connection of the mounting brackets
securing the anti-intrusion beam to the pillars due in part,to improper and or incomplete
welding (Id @ 58). The issue of poor welding was observed not only on the intrusion
beam but was found in other areas of the vehicle construction (Id @ 59).
9. The side impact protection system relies on an anti-intrusion beam that, in part,
"B" "C"
holds the and structural pillars in position. The anti-intrusion beam failed to
4
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC.. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
reduce intrusion and was just pushed out of the way, rather than perform in the way it
was designed. The lack of significant bend found on the anti-intrusion beam
demonstrated that the beam failed to reduce the intrusive forces (Id @ 60) and help to
maintain the structural integrity of the side impact protection system.
10. The anti-intrusion beam was improperly attached to the limousine structure. The
welding was of poor quality (Id @ 89), incomplete and insufficient. Several of the fillet
welds used to join the brackets securing the anti-intrusion beam and pillars forthe
stretched portion of the crash limousine exhibited what is known as a lack of penetration
(Id @ 57) also known as a lack of fusion (LOF) defects which occurs when the welding
procedure does not result in a homogeneous seam as discussed above.
11. 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
(Id @ 64). The rocker panel is a significant part of the crash energy management system
which is integral to the side impact protection system. In the event of a side impact
collision, intrusion prevention (side impact protection) and/or mitigation and energy
displacement (crash energy management) are key safety issues (Id @ 66).
12. To protect the occupants during a collision, crash energy has to be managed and
diverted around the passenger compartment (Id @ 66). 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 inability of the
energy management system to redirect collision forces ( Id @ 67).
5
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
13. 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 (2) 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 (Id @ 62).
14. Tack 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 you can get them in the right place
before you make a permanent, homogenous weld ( Id @ 60), that cannot be taken apart.
The tack weld is one step beyond using a clamp to put two things together ( Id @ 65).
15. Examination of the rocker 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.
16. In the crash limousine, the rocker panel was not connected to anything and was
found loose (Id @ 67). I also observed, on inspection of the crash limousine, that the
welding on the modified portion of the rocker panel was of such poor quality, inadequate
welding, penetration, and other weld related defects that itresulted in the compromise of
the rocker panel; thus contributing to the failure of the side impact 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
6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
failed to replicate the original equipment manufacturer ("OEM"), but they failed to
replicate the quantity and quality of welds in the manufacturer's original construction (Id.
@ 68), (Special Grand Jury Minutes, August 17, 2016 @ page 123).
17. Aside from the welding defects, I also determined that there was no additional
secondary structure, such as floor beams or roof 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 pillars as the floor rolled up (Grand Jury
Minutes, June 21, 2016, page 70).
18. 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 crash limousine's ability to resist the intruding
forces, to distribute the collision energy to other areas, or to allow the crash limousine to
possibly move more on the roadway as part of the energy absorbing process. Itallowed
the truck to move inward, into the crash limousine's passenger compartment, and to push
the pillar into the interior components, which interacted with the crash limousine's
passengers.
19. My investigation, and thus my testimony, established that the side impact
protection system failed in part due to improper/incomplete construction assembly (poor
quality welding), lack of additional structure (roof and floor beams), and insufficient
securing of the body to the structure (body mount placement and quantity) and failure of
the rocker panel system .
7
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
20. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty,
and as per to the Grand that the side impact protection and anti-
my testimony Jury,
intrusion system in the crash limousine failed (Id @ 73). The failure was in part the
unacceptable"
result of poor-quality welding ("woefully inadequate and (Id @ 78)), 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 pillars in place (Id @ 88).
21. It ismy opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty,
and as per to the Grand that the side impact protection and anti-
my testimony Jury,
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
position"
improper in (Id @ 75). 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 (Id @ 75).
22. It ismy opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty,
and as per to the Grand that the side impact protection and anti-
my testimony Jury,
intrusion system in the crash limousine failed, in part,due to the floor and the rocker
panel pulling away from the frame of the crash limousine, which allowed the C-pillar to
move out of position and take with itthe anti-intrusion beam. Itfurther allowed for the
additional collapse of the floor and the displacement of the roof. This contributed
significantly to the failure of the side impact protection system.
8
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
23. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty,
and as per my testimony to the Grand Jury, that shortcuts were taken in the construction
of the crash limousine ( poor
i.e., quality welding (Id. @ 89)). Welding certification and
construction oversight (Id @ 91) would have prevented or reduced the extent of the side
impact protection failure.
24. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty,
and as per my testimony to the Grand Jury, that a stronger side impact protection system
could have decreased the chance for injury or loss of life and increased the potential for
survivability of the young women in the passenger compartment who perished (Id @ 90
- 91).
25. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty,
and as per my testimony to the Grand Jury, that had the welding been done properly, and
had the crash limousine been properly engineered during modification, the modified
version of the Ford Town Car would have been safer (Id @ 94).
Dated:
Jeffre ange, P.E.
""'
Sworn to before me this
day of Novemb 022
STATE
. OF NEW ,
3'33
No Public 55
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 "4" EXHIBIT FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF . DOC. . NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 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 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 IN Plaintiffs, OPPOSITION -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. ---------------- --- X JEFFREY LANGE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a not a party to this litigation. I have been requested by John L. Juliano, Esq., the attorney representing the plaintiff, Estate of Brittney Schulman and on behalf of all plaintiffs in the above captioned action, to make this affidavit to confirm and support the testimony I gave before the Special Grand Jury on June 21, 2016, and August 16, 2016, regarding the investigation of this catastrophic limousine collision which occurred on July 18, 2015; I also provided further testimony on October 19, 2021, pursuant to a "So 1 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 Ordered" subpoena, regarding my investigation and findings. I did not request or receive compensation for my time associated with my investigation into this matter or the subsequent testimony. 2. In May of 2016, I was requested by the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office to examine a 2007 Lincoln Town Car limousine bearing Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) IL1 FM88W87Y616205 (herein "crash limousine") and a 2005 Dodge Dakota pickup truck bearing VIN 1D7HW58N55S227605 (herein "truck") 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. This required examinations of the crash limousine and truck which were performed on June 15, 2016, at the Suffolk County Police Department impound facility in Westhampton, New York. The purpose of my examination and analysis was to determine the structural integrity (or lack thereof) associated with the modification from a passenger car to a limousine. My investigation included analysis of the modified design and implementation of the modifications including the construction factors (materials, welding, etc.). 3. I,Jeffrey Lange, 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 involving various vehicles and the manifestations of defects, malfunctions, and collisions. I have been accepted as an expert and have provided testimony in the District and 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 Technology degree in Electromechanical Computer 2 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 . NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 Engineering Technology and a Master of Science in Forensic Examination. I am the owner and president of Lange Technical Services, a forensic automotive engineering firm. I have also presented my methodologies and techniques to members of the Suffolk County Police Department, the New York City Police Department, U.S. Postal Inspectors, insurance personnel, and private engineers through various professional organizations. 4. On June 21, 2016, and then again, on August 17, 2016, I provided testimony to the Special Grand Jury my findings and opinions regarding the response of the crash limousine to the collision of July 18, 2015. On September 20, 2016, the Special Grand Jury empaneled to investigate the July 18, 2015, collision issued itsreport. Excerpts of my testimony, which include my findings, evaluation, analysis, and opinions concerning the structural integrity and crash worthiness of the crash limousine involved were contained in the final Special Grand Jury Report. NYSCEF Doc. No. 1010. 5. The purpose of my examination of 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 contributed to the collision response. My analysis considered the structural integrity of the crash limousine and why itdid not protect the occupants as itcould have during the collision. In addition, my purpose was to address the construction and design issues to "maybe prevent or otherwise limit such an intrusion future." and deformity in the (Grand Jury Minutes, June 21, 2016, page 45) 6. Based on my physical examination of the vehicles, I confinned that this was a side impact collision that resulted in substantial intrusion of the truck into the passenger 3 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 compartment of the crash limousine. My investigation revealed that the side impact protection system of the crash limousine failed due to a 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. In all vehicles, there is a side impact safety/protection system that prevents or should reduce intrusion into the passenger compartment of an opposing vehicle during a side impact (Id @ 48). Side impact protection is a system of components and connections 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 is a function of the design and integrity of the crash energy management system. 8. My 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. Indications of poor welding were identified in multiple areas. Welding is a process where two (2) materials are melted together, and a filleris added to create one (1) homogeneous seam (Id @ 58). A significant factor in the failure of the side impact protection system was a lack of proper connection of the mounting brackets securing the anti-intrusion beam to the pillars due in part,to improper and or incomplete welding (Id @ 58). The issue of poor welding was observed not only on the intrusion beam but was found in other areas of the vehicle construction (Id @ 59). 9. The side impact protection system relies on an anti-intrusion beam that, in part, "B" "C" holds the and structural pillars in position. The anti-intrusion beam failed to 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC.. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 reduce intrusion and was just pushed out of the way, rather than perform in the way it was designed. The lack of significant bend found on the anti-intrusion beam demonstrated that the beam failed to reduce the intrusive forces (Id @ 60) and help to maintain the structural integrity of the side impact protection system. 10. The anti-intrusion beam was improperly attached to the limousine structure. The welding was of poor quality (Id @ 89), incomplete and insufficient. Several of the fillet welds used to join the brackets securing the anti-intrusion beam and pillars forthe stretched portion of the crash limousine exhibited what is known as a lack of penetration (Id @ 57) also known as a lack of fusion (LOF) defects which occurs when the welding procedure does not result in a homogeneous seam as discussed above. 11. 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 (Id @ 64). The rocker panel is a significant part of the crash energy management system which is integral to the side impact protection system. In the event of a side impact collision, intrusion prevention (side impact protection) and/or mitigation and energy displacement (crash energy management) are key safety issues (Id @ 66). 12. To protect the occupants during a collision, crash energy has to be managed and diverted around the passenger compartment (Id @ 66). 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 inability of the energy management system to redirect collision forces ( Id @ 67). 5 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 13. 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 (2) 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 (Id @ 62). 14. Tack 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 you can get them in the right place before you make a permanent, homogenous weld ( Id @ 60), that cannot be taken apart. The tack weld is one step beyond using a clamp to put two things together ( Id @ 65). 15. Examination of the rocker 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. 16. In the crash limousine, the rocker panel was not connected to anything and was found loose (Id @ 67). I also observed, on inspection of the crash limousine, that the welding on the modified portion of the rocker panel was of such poor quality, inadequate welding, penetration, and other weld related defects that itresulted in the compromise of the rocker panel; thus contributing to the failure of the side impact 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 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 failed to replicate the original equipment manufacturer ("OEM"), but they failed to replicate the quantity and quality of welds in the manufacturer's original construction (Id. @ 68), (Special Grand Jury Minutes, August 17, 2016 @ page 123). 17. Aside from the welding defects, I also determined that there was no additional secondary structure, such as floor beams or roof 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 pillars as the floor rolled up (Grand Jury Minutes, June 21, 2016, page 70). 18. 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 crash limousine's ability to resist the intruding forces, to distribute the collision energy to other areas, or to allow the crash limousine to possibly move more on the roadway as part of the energy absorbing process. Itallowed the truck to move inward, into the crash limousine's passenger compartment, and to push the pillar into the interior components, which interacted with the crash limousine's passengers. 19. My investigation, and thus my testimony, established that the side impact protection system failed in part due to improper/incomplete construction assembly (poor quality welding), lack of additional structure (roof and floor beams), and insufficient securing of the body to the structure (body mount placement and quantity) and failure of the rocker panel system . 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 20. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, and as per to the Grand that the side impact protection and anti- my testimony Jury, intrusion system in the crash limousine failed (Id @ 73). The failure was in part the unacceptable" result of poor-quality welding ("woefully inadequate and (Id @ 78)), 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 pillars in place (Id @ 88). 21. It ismy opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, and as per to the Grand that the side impact protection and anti- my testimony Jury, 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 position" improper in (Id @ 75). 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 (Id @ 75). 22. It ismy opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, and as per to the Grand that the side impact protection and anti- my testimony Jury, intrusion system in the crash limousine failed, in part,due to the floor and the rocker panel pulling away from the frame of the crash limousine, which allowed the C-pillar to move out of position and take with itthe anti-intrusion beam. Itfurther allowed for the additional collapse of the floor and the displacement of the roof. This contributed significantly to the failure of the side impact protection system. 8 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1209 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 23. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, and as per my testimony to the Grand Jury, that shortcuts were taken in the construction of the crash limousine ( poor i.e., quality welding (Id. @ 89)). Welding certification and construction oversight (Id @ 91) would have prevented or reduced the extent of the side impact protection failure. 24. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, and as per my testimony to the Grand Jury, that a stronger side impact protection system could have decreased the chance for injury or loss of life and increased the potential for survivability of the young women in the passenger compartment who perished (Id @ 90 - 91). 25. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, and as per my testimony to the Grand Jury, that had the welding been done properly, and had the crash limousine been properly engineered during modification, the modified version of the Ford Town Car would have been safer (Id @ 94). Dated: Jeffre ange, P.E. ""' Sworn to before me this day of Novemb 022 STATE . OF NEW , 3'33 No Public 55