Can you name differences in the concerns that auto-glass installer’s face in regard to consumer safety versus the concerns of an original-equipment manufacturer? Consider:
• Environmental conditions during installation
• Drive-away times
• Selection of glass and products, and the pre-testing they require.
Keep in mind that original equipment is regulated by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, as stated in the U.S. Code, and the after-market is regulated by the ANSI/AGRSS 002-2002 Automotive Glass Replacement Safety Standard and the judicial system. In the ideal world, auto-glass replacement specialists want to follow what the OE engineers had in mind when they set specifications for auto glass and its retention. Yet aftermarket technicians face the above and other factors that influence their installations, factors few OE engineers consider when designing cars.
As a result, auto-glass installers occupy a fairly solitary niche when it comes to protecting themselves from the inherent risks of their profession. Let us consider each component that contributes to those risks. First, take the quick quiz below; then, read on.
Legal Precedents
Some of the most well-known lawsuits regarding auto-glass installation and replacement include the following, cited by consultant Bob Beranek of Sun Prairie, WI:
• George Miller v. Solaglas California, 1982, www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/ppgcase.htm
• Giacomelli v. General Casualty & Dick Cooper Glass, 1992
• Rhyne v. Confidential, 1999, regarding a rollover accident, www.oreillylaw.com/vehicle.htm • Donnett v. National Car Rental (General Motors Co.), 1998, a rollover accident, http://cibermex.hypermart.net/AVAG-FLASH/news.html
• Granada v. Ford Motor Co., 2002, also a rollover accident.
Three of the five made headlines. George Miller v. Solaglas California involves the notorious DW848 rubber-gasket windshield on a GMC pickup truck. Miller, the plaintiff, was rendered a quadriplegic “when another vehicle collided with the left rear of his truck, causing it to jump a curb and strike a metal light pole. The windshield, installed by a Solaglas facility in Colorado, “popped out” and Miller was ejected through the opening.” In a second trial, the Supreme Court of California in Sacramento ruled that urethane should have been used in the rubber gasket.
“[The] second jury trial resulted in a judgment against Solaglas for $6.1 million, $5.1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages.” The court concluded that Solaglas “purposefully performed with an awareness of the risk and in disregard of the consequences so as to constitute ‘wanton and reckless conduct.’”
The Rhyne v. Confidential case made its way to ABC’s 20/20 News Magazine in 1999. Tracy Rhyne’s tragic fate was the result of many factors. One was the failure of her windshield during a rollover, allowing the vehicle to collapse on Rhyne. She was awarded $2 million from the glass shop, of a total $8.75 million. She has since died due to complications from her condition.
The Donnett case made the front page of the Detroit News’ Business section in 1998, and nears end during March. As the injured party has now passed away, this has become a “wrongful death” case. The accident took place approximately 24 hours after the installation. Sixty percent of the glass had not even made contact with the adhesive due to faulty installation. Another 20 percent had actually pulled loose, according to an expert witness.
The Giacomelli case also involved DW848 glass on a GMC truck that hit another vehicle. A child became injured when the truck rolled end to end and the driver of the second vehicle died.
The latest case, Granada v. Ford Motor Co., has not made much news. It also results from a failed windshield during a rollover. The failure was on the bonding surface of the glass. Details have been difficult to obtain; yet—in a surprise move—Ford Motor Co. prevailed. The judge concluded that the plaintiffs would have suffered the same level of injuries regardless of the condition of the glass.
There are many more cases where the parties have settled out of court with the promise not to disclose information.