Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
"5"
EXHIBIT
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 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 AMY GRABINA
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.
X
JAMES PUGH, PH.D., P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I am a nota party to thislitigation. I have been requested by the attorneys repesenting
the eight occupants of the subject limousine, and specifically by Frank Laine, Esq., the attorney
representing the plaintiffEstate of Amy Grabina, deceased, to make this afHdavit to determine
the effect of various safety systems in the subject limousine on the mitigation of injuries and
prevention of the death of the plaintiff'sdecedent in the above-cited action, My investigation and
1
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
findings in this affidavit address the injuries and associated analysis for the
specifically
plaintiff'sdecedent, Amy Grabina.
2. I am a forensic automotive engineer accident investigation and vehicle
performing
analysis for over thirtyyears. 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 in
testimony
the District and Supreme Courts of New York, as well as Long Island for plaintiffs and
defendants in civiland criminal matters various issues of and motor
regarding engineering
vehicle accidents and safety. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in and a Doctor of
engineering
Philosophy degree in Biomedical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am the president and dimctor of Inter-City Testing &
Consulting Corporation, a forensic engineering firm specializing in analysis of automotive
accidents, injury causation, and injury prevention. I have consulted with numerous federal and
state agencies, 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 assistant district 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 been recognized as an authority on automotive
crashworthiness and operator safety, I have been invited and have appeared on national
television networks as a consumer advocate to increase the safety of motor vehicles.
3. My analysis and opinions are rendeed herein are to a reasonable degree of certainty in
science, engineering, biomechanics, ergonomics, and occupant safety. The bases for these
2
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
opinions are contained the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), and the
preambles to the specific FMVSS's cited.
4. The standard is FMVSS 208 - Occupant Crash which
primary Protection, covers in detail
those factors that prevent injuries and deaths in motor vehicle accidents, the requirements
necessary to be incorporated into motor vehicles to prevent injuries and deaths in motor vehicle
accidents, and the testing that has been done and should be done to confmn that the motor
vehicles comply with the standards. The severity and specifies of those tests specified 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 iseconomical, feasible, and in the
interests of their customers. An example isthe manufacturers exceeding the crash survivability
requirements mandated by the FMVSS's, as demonstrated by the National Transportation Safety
Association (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Test Reports showing at least a 5-
mph delta-V survival severity greater than that mandated by the FMVSS's.
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 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 limit the incidence of injuries and fatalities.
3
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
6. On October 22, 2019, I inspected the 2007 Lincoln Town Car limousine Vehicle
bearing
Identification Number (VIN) ILIFM88W87Y616205 and the 2005 Dodge Dakota truck
pickup
bearing VIN ID7HW58N55S227605 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 was performed at the Suffolk County Police Department
impound facility in Westhampton, New York. I also inspected the siteof the accident, and have
driven through the subject intersection approximately once per week for the past 20 years.
7. The purpose of my examination, inspection, and analysis was to determine the structural
integrity,or lack thereof, associated with the modification from a passenger car to a limousine,
and the relationship of the lack of structural integrityto the biomechanics of the eight (8) young
women 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.
8. On February 14, 2020, in Huntington, New York, I alsoexamined and inspected the side
impact bar that had been removed from the limousine. These two inspections have allowed me
to confum the findings reported by Jeffrey Lange in his affidavit dated November 11, 2022.
9. The accident occurred on July 18, 2015, at approximately 5:15 pm, on County Route 48
at the intersection with Depot Lane, Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, and
involved a 2005 Dodge Dakota pickup truck operated by the defendant, Steven Romeo and a
2007 Lincoln Town Car converted into a stretch limousine operated by the defendant, Carlos
Pino. Eight unrestrained young women were in the rearseating positions of the limousine. As
4
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
the limousine was in the process of making a U-turn to proceed westbound on Route 48,
County
the pickup broadsided the limousine almost in the dead center of the limousine.
10. The data reconfer 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. Stephens, the
Gregory
accident reconstruction expert produced by the defendant, Cabot Coach Builders, Inc.alleges in
his affidavit dated August 29, 2022, thata delta-V for the limousine of 20 mph with a principal
direction of force (PDOF) of 90 degrees, and a peak lateral acceleration of 13.9 g's.
11. My inspection revealed significant intrusion of the pickup truck into the passenger's side
of the limousine, and very little
deformation to the front of the truck. Examination of the
pickup
pickup truck without any additional information would lead one to believe that thisvehicle did
not suffer a major frontal impact, and itsrelatively intactcondition was dramatic alative 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 hit what was essentially an
expendable crash cushion similar to the crushable barriers protecting vehicles from hard impacts
against Jersey barriers at exits on superhighways.
12. 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 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.
5
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
13. 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
that was stretched and converted to a limousine. This is consistent with, for example, converters
who transform production sedans into convertibles, with the understanding and need to
strengthen the unibody to accommodate the conversion and to preserve the rigidity of the
passenger cage as a space frame originally and strengthened to convert to a convertible to
adequate resist intrusion in accidents.
14. Crashworthiness is defined as the ability of a motor vehicle to protect occupants against
death and injuries in aforeseeable 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 collisions and specifies a testfor motor
vehicles simulating a t-bone-type collision. FMVSS 208 has established a delta-V in a rigid
barrier collision at a speed of 30 mph, which isa delta-V of slightly greater than 30 mph due to
elastic 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 was approximately 20 mph for the limousine, much lower than the 33mph
reasonable delta.V established by the federal govemment in the FMVSS's.
15. FMVSS 208 specifies requirements for side impact crashworthiness, as follows, in §5.2
Lateral Moving Barrier Crash Test: "Impact to a vehicle laterally on eitherside by a barrier
moving at 20 mph under the applicable conditions of §8. The test dummy specified in §8.1.8
positioned in the front outboard designated seating position adjacent to the impacted side shall
6
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
standard."
meet the injury criteriaof §6.2 and 6.3 of this Further, §6.1 states the following: "All
portions of the test dummy shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger
compartment."
This test forside 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 the massive and
undeformable nature of the moving barrier, because the pickup is deformable and should have
crushed 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.
16. In all vehicles, there must be a side impact safety/protection system that prevents and/or
should reduce intrusion into the passenger compartment of an opposing vehicle during a side
impact. 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 isa function of the design and integrity of the cash energy management
system. The resistance to side impact isa result of the design and construction of a "space
frame"
which is a three-dimensional structure much likea geodesic dome which resists
space"
deformation in alldirections, and which preserves the occupant "safe or area in which the
occupants are seated.
17. My own examination of the crash limousine side impact protection components revealed
that the anti-intrusion beam was not properly secured to the vehicle pillarsduring 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 primary anti-intrusion component of the limousine
7
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
failed due to defective 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.
18. The basic principles of ensuring that a vehicle is adequately 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 $19 through124.
19. Regarding the space frame, which is the primary and most significant component for
adequate crashworthiness, the occupant compartment must not collapse or intrude into the
passengers'
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 thisaffidavit, the design and
construction of a space frame of adequate rigidity. An alternate system to significant 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 the
subject 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.
8
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
passengers'
20. The interiorareas of the compartment must be adequately padded and
covered, and sharp and bard areas must be eliminated so 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.
21. The interior described in 120 above isgreatly assisted and achieved through the
padding
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 injuries and fatalities,and preventing unbelted occupants from
preventing
with each other and with the interior structures of the limousine. Airbags are
colliding colliding
considered passive restraints and, as such, do not require anything on the part of the occupants to
restraints"
achieve protection from injury, and are alsointended to be so called "supplemental to
augment and increase the protection afforded through the use of seatbelts.
22. Seatbelts were mandated to be installed in motor vehicles by the federal govemment in
and seatbelts with shoulder harnesses were mandated a few years later. General Motors, in
1968,
a pilotprogram to demonstrate the effectiveness of airbags, did a study in 1973 involving fitting
production vehicles with airbags, and GM was so confident of the injury-protection afforded by
airbags that did not even install seatbelts in the vehicles. The results of the study were
they
confirmation of the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of airbags. However, passive
restraints airbags did not become standard features in motor vehicles until 1983, when
including
FMVSS 208 required passive restraints to be installed in motor vehicles. Automatic seatbelts
satisfied the requirement, but itbecame apparent, through efforts by consumer advocates
myself, that those automatic seatbelts were inferior to non-automatic seatbelts in their
including
abilitiesto prevent deaths and injuries. Therefore, itbecame apparent around the year 2000 that
9
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
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.
23. The contents of this affidavit are intended to summarize the materials contained in those
approximate 400 pages as they relateto the subject vehicle and to the subject accident. FMVSS
208 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 insurance companies, and
any and allothers having a financial stake in the legislation. Certain proposed requirements were
necessarily watered down, such as the requirement thatconversion 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 toolbox
so that their converted vehicles have the requisite features to safely serve their intended
functions, which isbasis for requirements of product liability.The Lincoln Town Car was
certified as complying with allapplicable FMVSS's in effect at the time of manufacture, which
included side impact requimments, and the converter produced a vehicle that was NOT in
compliance with those same standards with which the basic vehicle complied.
24. The area between the inner and outer panels of the rear portion of the limousine should
have been filledwith energy-absorbing material such as expanded polystyane foam (EPS). An
adequate width of EPS, estimated and suggested to be at least 6 inches, would significantly
increase the side crashworthiness of the limousine.
10
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
25. Occupants must be restrained with three-point combination lap and shoulder hamess
seatbelts at the very least,with combination emergency locking and inertialretractor
mechanisms. Seatbelts ensure that the occupants experience the entire ride-down of any
compromise in the space frame and mils the 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 limousine. Without such supervision and
mandating of seatbelt usage, the rear passenger compartment of the limousine is reduced again to
an unsupervised adult playpen. The warnings to wear the seatbelts must be highly visible,
numerous in quantity, and color-coded to draw the attention of the occupants. The seatbelt
warnings in the converted limousine were defective and virtually worthless. The testimony from
a surviving occupant was that the seatbelts were not readily available and no one enforced their
usage.
26. When a motor vehicle such as the subject limousine isexposed or involved in a
foreseeable accident of reasonable severity and injuries are sustained, itis invariably because of
violation of at leastone of the requirements detailed in $19 through 125 immediately preceding
this paragraph.
27. The subject limousine, however, lacked all of the required systems mandated for
adequate crashworthiness, and, even ifthe construction and welding were not defective, there
stillwould 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.
11
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
28. The remanufacturer (Cabot) (converters) of the standard Lincoln Town Car into a stretch
limousine had a large tool box at their disposal, allof which had proven to be effective in
ensuring that the limousine would be crashworthy, and they failed to open the tool box and failed
to utilizethe tools in that box, allof which are enumerated in ¶19 through $25 of thisaffidavit.
29. Following on §28 above, and by the affidavit of Lange dated November 11, 2022, from
which I am paraphrasing as follows in thisparagraph: The side impact protection system in the
"B" "C"
subject limousine relies on an anti-intrusion beam that,in part, holds the and structural
pillarsin position. The anti-intrusion beam failed to reduce intrusion and was just pushed out of
the way, rather than having performed in the itwas designed and intended. The anti-
way
intrusion beam was defectively attached to the limousine structure. The welding was of poor
quality, incomplete, and insufficient. Several of the filletwelds used to jointhe brackets
securing the anti-intrusion beam and pillarsfor 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 is integralto 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 thiscase,
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
12
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
of the energy management system to redirect collision forces. Other issues the anti-
concerning
intrusion system included the deformity of the flooring which moved from its position
mounting
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 apartand 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 the right place before
making a permanent, homogenous weld, which cannot 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 is toachieve a weld that, when the welded item isoverloaded, the weld itself does not
fail,but the associated metallic components fail. My 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 failureof the side impact protection system. In the subject limousine, the
rocker panel was not connected to the frame and was found to be loose and free-floating, and the
welding on the modified ponion 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 failed to replicate the original
equipment manufacturer joinery, but these welds failed to replicate the quantity and quality of
welds in the manufacturer's original construction. Aside from the welding defects, I also
13
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
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 of the pillars as the floor rolled upwards.
positioning
When the rocker panel and the mid-comparknent were rolled from the
flooring away
substructure of the crash limousine, these components were no longer a part of the anti-intrusion
system. This reduced the ability of the limousine to resistthe intruding forces, to distribute the
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 to push the pillarinto the interior components,
which interacted in a fataland injury-productive manner with the occupants.
30. My own inspection showed that the side impact protection system failed in partdue 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 18 above.
31. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, that the
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 pillars in place.
14
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
32. Itis also my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty,
thatthe side impact protection and anti-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 formore mounts
and for placing additional mounts closer to the pillarssince that is an area of structural integrity.
I am therefore in agreement with the findings and opinions of Jeffery Lange, as I have done my
own inspections of the vehicles and vehicle systems and am well-trained in structural
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.
33. The contents of §29 as hereinbefore stated, confinns 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 $19 through ¶25 of this affidavit been in place in the
limousine, allof which were economically feasible at the time of manufacture of the base vehicle
and itssubsequent conversion to a stretch vehicle in 2007 or later, ALL OF THE OCCUPANTS
WOULD HAVE ESCAPED THE ACCIDENT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INJURIES, NO
ONE WOULD HAVE DIED, and, at most, given the youth of the occupants, their relatively
similar and diminutive size, and the injury-resistant biomechanical properties of the tissues
associated with youth, would have suffered transient strain and sprain of the shoulder areas and
the spine, and perhaps bruising in the area of contact with the seatbelts.
34. It ismy opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, that the
side impact protection and anti-intrusion system in the crash limousine failed,in part, due to the
15
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022
floor and the rocker panel away fmm the frame of the crash limousine, which allowed the
pulling
C-pillar to move out of position and take with itthe anti-intrusion beam.
Preview
FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 "5" EXHIBIT FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 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 AMY GRABINA 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. X JAMES PUGH, PH.D., P.E., being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a nota party to thislitigation. I have been requested by the attorneys repesenting the eight occupants of the subject limousine, and specifically by Frank Laine, Esq., the attorney representing the plaintiffEstate of Amy Grabina, deceased, to make this afHdavit to determine the effect of various safety systems in the subject limousine on the mitigation of injuries and prevention of the death of the plaintiff'sdecedent in the above-cited action, My investigation and 1 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 findings in this affidavit address the injuries and associated analysis for the specifically plaintiff'sdecedent, Amy Grabina. 2. I am a forensic automotive engineer accident investigation and vehicle performing analysis for over thirtyyears. 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 in testimony the District and Supreme Courts of New York, as well as Long Island for plaintiffs and defendants in civiland criminal matters various issues of and motor regarding engineering vehicle accidents and safety. I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in and a Doctor of engineering Philosophy degree in Biomedical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am the president and dimctor of Inter-City Testing & Consulting Corporation, a forensic engineering firm specializing in analysis of automotive accidents, injury causation, and injury prevention. I have consulted with numerous federal and state agencies, 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 assistant district 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 been recognized as an authority on automotive crashworthiness and operator safety, I have been invited and have appeared on national television networks as a consumer advocate to increase the safety of motor vehicles. 3. My analysis and opinions are rendeed herein are to a reasonable degree of certainty in science, engineering, biomechanics, ergonomics, and occupant safety. The bases for these 2 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 opinions are contained the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS's), and the preambles to the specific FMVSS's cited. 4. The standard is FMVSS 208 - Occupant Crash which primary Protection, covers in detail those factors that prevent injuries and deaths in motor vehicle accidents, the requirements necessary to be incorporated into motor vehicles to prevent injuries and deaths in motor vehicle accidents, and the testing that has been done and should be done to confmn that the motor vehicles comply with the standards. The severity and specifies of those tests specified 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 iseconomical, feasible, and in the interests of their customers. An example isthe manufacturers exceeding the crash survivability requirements mandated by the FMVSS's, as demonstrated by the National Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA) New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) Test Reports showing at least a 5- mph delta-V survival severity greater than that mandated by the FMVSS's. 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 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 limit the incidence of injuries and fatalities. 3 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 6. On October 22, 2019, I inspected the 2007 Lincoln Town Car limousine Vehicle bearing Identification Number (VIN) ILIFM88W87Y616205 and the 2005 Dodge Dakota truck pickup bearing VIN ID7HW58N55S227605 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 was performed at the Suffolk County Police Department impound facility in Westhampton, New York. I also inspected the siteof the accident, and have driven through the subject intersection approximately once per week for the past 20 years. 7. The purpose of my examination, inspection, and analysis was to determine the structural integrity,or lack thereof, associated with the modification from a passenger car to a limousine, and the relationship of the lack of structural integrityto the biomechanics of the eight (8) young women 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. 8. On February 14, 2020, in Huntington, New York, I alsoexamined and inspected the side impact bar that had been removed from the limousine. These two inspections have allowed me to confum the findings reported by Jeffrey Lange in his affidavit dated November 11, 2022. 9. The accident occurred on July 18, 2015, at approximately 5:15 pm, on County Route 48 at the intersection with Depot Lane, Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, and involved a 2005 Dodge Dakota pickup truck operated by the defendant, Steven Romeo and a 2007 Lincoln Town Car converted into a stretch limousine operated by the defendant, Carlos Pino. Eight unrestrained young women were in the rearseating positions of the limousine. As 4 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 the limousine was in the process of making a U-turn to proceed westbound on Route 48, County the pickup broadsided the limousine almost in the dead center of the limousine. 10. The data reconfer 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. Stephens, the Gregory accident reconstruction expert produced by the defendant, Cabot Coach Builders, Inc.alleges in his affidavit dated August 29, 2022, thata delta-V for the limousine of 20 mph with a principal direction of force (PDOF) of 90 degrees, and a peak lateral acceleration of 13.9 g's. 11. My inspection revealed significant intrusion of the pickup truck into the passenger's side of the limousine, and very little deformation to the front of the truck. Examination of the pickup pickup truck without any additional information would lead one to believe that thisvehicle did not suffer a major frontal impact, and itsrelatively intactcondition was dramatic alative 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 hit what was essentially an expendable crash cushion similar to the crushable barriers protecting vehicles from hard impacts against Jersey barriers at exits on superhighways. 12. 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 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. 5 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 13. 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 that was stretched and converted to a limousine. This is consistent with, for example, converters who transform production sedans into convertibles, with the understanding and need to strengthen the unibody to accommodate the conversion and to preserve the rigidity of the passenger cage as a space frame originally and strengthened to convert to a convertible to adequate resist intrusion in accidents. 14. Crashworthiness is defined as the ability of a motor vehicle to protect occupants against death and injuries in aforeseeable 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 collisions and specifies a testfor motor vehicles simulating a t-bone-type collision. FMVSS 208 has established a delta-V in a rigid barrier collision at a speed of 30 mph, which isa delta-V of slightly greater than 30 mph due to elastic 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 was approximately 20 mph for the limousine, much lower than the 33mph reasonable delta.V established by the federal govemment in the FMVSS's. 15. FMVSS 208 specifies requirements for side impact crashworthiness, as follows, in §5.2 Lateral Moving Barrier Crash Test: "Impact to a vehicle laterally on eitherside by a barrier moving at 20 mph under the applicable conditions of §8. The test dummy specified in §8.1.8 positioned in the front outboard designated seating position adjacent to the impacted side shall 6 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 standard." meet the injury criteriaof §6.2 and 6.3 of this Further, §6.1 states the following: "All portions of the test dummy shall be contained within the outer surfaces of the vehicle passenger compartment." This test forside 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 the massive and undeformable nature of the moving barrier, because the pickup is deformable and should have crushed 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. 16. In all vehicles, there must be a side impact safety/protection system that prevents and/or should reduce intrusion into the passenger compartment of an opposing vehicle during a side impact. 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 isa function of the design and integrity of the cash energy management system. The resistance to side impact isa result of the design and construction of a "space frame" which is a three-dimensional structure much likea geodesic dome which resists space" deformation in alldirections, and which preserves the occupant "safe or area in which the occupants are seated. 17. My own examination of the crash limousine side impact protection components revealed that the anti-intrusion beam was not properly secured to the vehicle pillarsduring 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 primary anti-intrusion component of the limousine 7 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 failed due to defective 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. 18. The basic principles of ensuring that a vehicle is adequately 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 $19 through124. 19. Regarding the space frame, which is the primary and most significant component for adequate crashworthiness, the occupant compartment must not collapse or intrude into the passengers' 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 thisaffidavit, the design and construction of a space frame of adequate rigidity. An alternate system to significant 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 the subject 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. 8 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 passengers' 20. The interiorareas of the compartment must be adequately padded and covered, and sharp and bard areas must be eliminated so 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. 21. The interior described in 120 above isgreatly assisted and achieved through the padding 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 injuries and fatalities,and preventing unbelted occupants from preventing with each other and with the interior structures of the limousine. Airbags are colliding colliding considered passive restraints and, as such, do not require anything on the part of the occupants to restraints" achieve protection from injury, and are alsointended to be so called "supplemental to augment and increase the protection afforded through the use of seatbelts. 22. Seatbelts were mandated to be installed in motor vehicles by the federal govemment in and seatbelts with shoulder harnesses were mandated a few years later. General Motors, in 1968, a pilotprogram to demonstrate the effectiveness of airbags, did a study in 1973 involving fitting production vehicles with airbags, and GM was so confident of the injury-protection afforded by airbags that did not even install seatbelts in the vehicles. The results of the study were they confirmation of the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and feasibility of airbags. However, passive restraints airbags did not become standard features in motor vehicles until 1983, when including FMVSS 208 required passive restraints to be installed in motor vehicles. Automatic seatbelts satisfied the requirement, but itbecame apparent, through efforts by consumer advocates myself, that those automatic seatbelts were inferior to non-automatic seatbelts in their including abilitiesto prevent deaths and injuries. Therefore, itbecame apparent around the year 2000 that 9 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 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. 23. The contents of this affidavit are intended to summarize the materials contained in those approximate 400 pages as they relateto the subject vehicle and to the subject accident. FMVSS 208 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 insurance companies, and any and allothers having a financial stake in the legislation. Certain proposed requirements were necessarily watered down, such as the requirement thatconversion 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 toolbox so that their converted vehicles have the requisite features to safely serve their intended functions, which isbasis for requirements of product liability.The Lincoln Town Car was certified as complying with allapplicable FMVSS's in effect at the time of manufacture, which included side impact requimments, and the converter produced a vehicle that was NOT in compliance with those same standards with which the basic vehicle complied. 24. The area between the inner and outer panels of the rear portion of the limousine should have been filledwith energy-absorbing material such as expanded polystyane foam (EPS). An adequate width of EPS, estimated and suggested to be at least 6 inches, would significantly increase the side crashworthiness of the limousine. 10 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 25. Occupants must be restrained with three-point combination lap and shoulder hamess seatbelts at the very least,with combination emergency locking and inertialretractor mechanisms. Seatbelts ensure that the occupants experience the entire ride-down of any compromise in the space frame and mils the 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 limousine. Without such supervision and mandating of seatbelt usage, the rear passenger compartment of the limousine is reduced again to an unsupervised adult playpen. The warnings to wear the seatbelts must be highly visible, numerous in quantity, and color-coded to draw the attention of the occupants. The seatbelt warnings in the converted limousine were defective and virtually worthless. The testimony from a surviving occupant was that the seatbelts were not readily available and no one enforced their usage. 26. When a motor vehicle such as the subject limousine isexposed or involved in a foreseeable accident of reasonable severity and injuries are sustained, itis invariably because of violation of at leastone of the requirements detailed in $19 through 125 immediately preceding this paragraph. 27. The subject limousine, however, lacked all of the required systems mandated for adequate crashworthiness, and, even ifthe construction and welding were not defective, there stillwould 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. 11 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 28. The remanufacturer (Cabot) (converters) of the standard Lincoln Town Car into a stretch limousine had a large tool box at their disposal, allof which had proven to be effective in ensuring that the limousine would be crashworthy, and they failed to open the tool box and failed to utilizethe tools in that box, allof which are enumerated in ¶19 through $25 of thisaffidavit. 29. Following on §28 above, and by the affidavit of Lange dated November 11, 2022, from which I am paraphrasing as follows in thisparagraph: The side impact protection system in the "B" "C" subject limousine relies on an anti-intrusion beam that,in part, holds the and structural pillarsin position. The anti-intrusion beam failed to reduce intrusion and was just pushed out of the way, rather than having performed in the itwas designed and intended. The anti- way intrusion beam was defectively attached to the limousine structure. The welding was of poor quality, incomplete, and insufficient. Several of the filletwelds used to jointhe brackets securing the anti-intrusion beam and pillarsfor 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 is integralto 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 thiscase, 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 12 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 of the energy management system to redirect collision forces. Other issues the anti- concerning intrusion system included the deformity of the flooring which moved from its position mounting 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 apartand 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 the right place before making a permanent, homogenous weld, which cannot 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 is toachieve a weld that, when the welded item isoverloaded, the weld itself does not fail,but the associated metallic components fail. My 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 failureof the side impact protection system. In the subject limousine, the rocker panel was not connected to the frame and was found to be loose and free-floating, and the welding on the modified ponion 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 failed to replicate the original equipment manufacturer joinery, but these welds failed to replicate the quantity and quality of welds in the manufacturer's original construction. Aside from the welding defects, I also 13 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 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 of the pillars as the floor rolled upwards. positioning When the rocker panel and the mid-comparknent were rolled from the flooring away substructure of the crash limousine, these components were no longer a part of the anti-intrusion system. This reduced the ability of the limousine to resistthe intruding forces, to distribute the 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 to push the pillarinto the interior components, which interacted in a fataland injury-productive manner with the occupants. 30. My own inspection showed that the side impact protection system failed in partdue 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 18 above. 31. Itis my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, that the 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 pillars in place. 14 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 32. Itis also my opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, thatthe side impact protection and anti-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 formore mounts and for placing additional mounts closer to the pillarssince that is an area of structural integrity. I am therefore in agreement with the findings and opinions of Jeffery Lange, as I have done my own inspections of the vehicles and vehicle systems and am well-trained in structural 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. 33. The contents of §29 as hereinbefore stated, confinns 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 $19 through ¶25 of this affidavit been in place in the limousine, allof which were economically feasible at the time of manufacture of the base vehicle and itssubsequent conversion to a stretch vehicle in 2007 or later, ALL OF THE OCCUPANTS WOULD HAVE ESCAPED THE ACCIDENT WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INJURIES, NO ONE WOULD HAVE DIED, and, at most, given the youth of the occupants, their relatively similar and diminutive size, and the injury-resistant biomechanical properties of the tissues associated with youth, would have suffered transient strain and sprain of the shoulder areas and the spine, and perhaps bruising in the area of contact with the seatbelts. 34. It ismy opinion, within a reasonable degree of professional engineering certainty, that the side impact protection and anti-intrusion system in the crash limousine failed,in part, due to the 15 FILED: SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK 11/30/2022 10:14 AM INDEX NO. 611214/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1210 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/30/2022 floor and the rocker panel away fmm the frame of the crash limousine, which allowed the pulling C-pillar to move out of position and take with itthe anti-intrusion beam.