False seat belt latching and seat belt defects can lead to catastrophic injuries in a car accident. If you’ve been in a motor vehicle accident and suspect it was related to a faulty seat belt latch, contact Bisnar Chase for a free case evaluation.
Our auto defect lawyers have decades of experience litigating dangerous and defective auto parts or negligence that leads to injury. You may be entitled to financial compensation, including economic and non-economic damages. Call 800-561-4887 to speak with a California false seat belt latching accident lawyer.
- Over $850M won
- Seasoned trial lawyers
- Free consultation
- No fee if we don’t win
- 99% success rate winning personal injury cases
False Seat Belt Latching Injury Lawyer
Why Is My Seat Belt Buckle Not Latching?
A seatbelt buckle not latching could be due to an auto defect. While common causes of a seatbelt buckle malfunction include damage or wear, debris or broken parts inside the buckle, a twisted or tangled belt, and grime buildup, defects in the design or manufacturing of the seatbelt system can also lead to issues with latching.
For instance, a condition known as “false latching” occurs when the belt clicks into place but isn’t securely fastened and comes undone under pressure or when jolted. This issue can arise from flaws in the design of the buckle, such as the absence of a spring or eject feature to ensure the tongue is fully engaged and to prevent the tongue from being partially inserted without proper engagement.
Defective seatbelts, including those with false latching issues, represent a significant safety risk as they may fail to secure occupants properly during a crash. If you suspect a defect is the cause of your seatbelt buckle not latching, it’s crucial to address the issue promptly.
Depending on the severity and nature of the defect, solutions may range from cleaning or repairing the buckle to replacing the entire seatbelt assembly. In cases where a defect is identified, contacting the vehicle manufacturer or a professional repair service is advisable to ensure the issue is resolved in compliance with safety standards.
Contact our California false seat belt latching accident lawyer for a free case evaluation and to see if you are entitled to financial compensation. Call 800-561-4887 today.
Defective Seat Belt Latch Mechanism -Visually Displayed
Dangers of Defective Seat Belts
The first major flaw in the RCF-65, 67/Type I buckle arises from the very design of the buckle itself. Upon some occasions, the user may insert the tongue into the buckle until enough resistance is encountered to lead someone to believe the buckle is fully engaged when it is not.
The RCF-65 and 67 have no spring or other eject feature built into the buckle to spit the tongue out if it is not fully engaged.
In such circumstances, the driver or passengers are led to believe that the seat belt latch buckle is engaged when it is not. If an accident occurs when the buckle is so configured, the sudden load forces cause the seat belt latch tongue to come out of the buckle and leave the occupant suddenly and unexpectedly unrestrained.
This condition, known as “false latching,” has been a known drawback of the RCF-65 and -67 since their inception. As early as August 31, 1966 (before the passage of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966), the National Bureau of Standards modified specific regulations governing seat belt buckles to include “additional requirements for seat belt latch buckles [which] are included to reduce the probability of false latching.”
As early as 1970, the European community adopted regulations that prohibited the use of buckles in Europe, where false seat belt latching was possible. By 1974, the RCF-67 was illegal in Europe because it was known to permit false latching.
The US automakers have long been aware that the RCF-67/Type I side-release buckle poses a significant danger of false latching inherent in the buckle. They have not only failed to address the problem but have suppressed it. And the problem of false latching is not an insignificant one.
What is Seat Belt Retractor Failure?
A seat belt retractor is a key component of a vehicle’s seat belt system, designed to spool the seat belt webbing and lock the seat belt in place during a collision or abrupt stop.
The retractor has two primary functions: to allow the seat belt to extend and retract freely with the occupant’s movements while driving, ensuring comfort and mobility, and to lock the seat belt in place in the event of a crash or when the car experiences a sudden change in velocity.
1. Failure to Retract: The seat belt webbing does not retract back into the housing after being extended. This can leave the seat belt hanging loosely and be a nuisance or interfere with vehicle operation.
2. Failure to Lock: More critically, the retractor may fail to lock the seat belt during a crash or when the car suddenly stops. This failure compromises the primary safety function of the seat belt, increasing the risk of injury to the occupant by not correctly restraining them.
3. False Locking: In some cases, the retractor may lock the seat belt at inappropriate times, unrelated to a crash or sudden stop. This can unnecessarily restrict occupant movement and be uncomfortable or potentially hazardous in certain driving situations.
4. Spooling Out Too Much Webbing: A malfunctioning retractor might allow too much webbing to spool out, failing to provide adequate restraint during a crash.
Collisions, mechanical flaws, or wear and tear damage are potential causes of seat belt retractor failures. Manufacturers may issue recalls for seat belt retractors if a systemic problem is identified. Regular vehicle maintenance checks can help identify and rectify such issues before they lead to a malfunction during a critical moment.
If a seat belt defect has injured you, contact Bisnar Chase for a free case evaluation. Call 800-561-4887 to speak with a California false seat belt latching accident lawyer.
2024 Seat Belt Recalls in the US
In 2024 so far, there have been several recalls related to seat belt issues in motor vehicles. Notably, Honda has recalled select 2023–2024 Accord and HR-V vehicles due to a missing piece in the front seat belt pretensioners, which could increase injury risks during a crash.
The pretensioners may be missing the rivet that secures the quick connector and wire plate, potentially affecting over 300,000 vehicles. Honda estimates that less than 1% of these vehicles will require repairs.
Chrysler has also issued a recall for 97,066 vehicles, specifically the 2022-2024 Jeep Grand Wagoneer and the 2022-2024 Jeep Wagoneer, due to the possibility that the seat belts in the third row are dysfunctional.
Vehicle owners are typically notified about such recalls by mail. For instance, Honda has stated that it will directly notify the owners of affected vehicles by mail starting January 8, 2024.
Owners can take their cars to a dealer for inspection and, if needed, a pretensioner replacement at no charge. Honda has also made provisions for owners who have already paid for repairs related to the recall to be eligible for reimbursement.
Owners can also check if their vehicle is affected by entering their Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) on the manufacturer’s recall webpage, such as www.recalls.honda.com for Honda vehicles, or by calling the manufacturer’s customer service line. For Honda, the number is (888) 234-2138.
Additionally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) provides a website where vehicle owners can enter their VIN to check for any recalls. Enter your VIN # here to check for a recall.
False Latching History: Ford's Own Conclusion
During the period from 1967 through 1968, in Crash and Sled testing, Ford Engineer Peter Bertleson, Manager of Impact Dynamics at Ford, supervised approximately 500 crash tests involving test dummies, of which approximately 50 percent involved RCF-67/Type I side-release buckles.
Of these tests, Ford knew at the time that approximately 15 percent of the dummies were left unrestrained at the conclusion of the test. Ford concluded that at least ½ of these resulted from Ford’s own test technicians falsely latching the dummies into their buckles prior to initiation of the test.
Independent of false latching occurrences actually taking place during crash testing, Ford and G.M. conducted a 1967 joint study that concluded that a new type of seat belt latch buckle incorporating a tongue eject feature was necessary to prevent false latching.
As early as the early 1970s, Ford developed General Product Acceptance Specifications, which mandated that a seat belt buckle “be designed so as to prevent false latching.” Nonetheless, Ford continued to use the RCF-67 which Ford knew was susceptible to false latching.
In 1973 and 1974, Hammill, a Division of Firestone, began manufacturing a “diecast” buckle. The “diecast” buckle looked remarkably similar to the RCF-67, but was made by Hamill pursuant to a Swiss patent, which announced as its sole purpose the prevention of the danger of “false latching.”
After two years of production and installation of the buckle into Ford vehicles, Ford and Hammill abandoned the buckle to conserve manufacturing costs on a more “difficult” buckle to produce. Ford reverted the false-latching-prone RCF-67.
A false seat belt latch was once more caught on videotape a few years later while Ford conducted barrier crash testing. In 1978, Ford performed a crash test on a Ford numbered 3888, a barrier impact test to determine fuel system integrity.
The buckle used for the dummies in the test was an RCF-67/Type buckle. The videotape clearly showed that at the time of impact, the crash test dummy occupying the front left passenger seat suddenly came unrestrained as its seat belt came flying off.
The dummy proceeded into and shattered the vehicle’s windshield. A human being in its place would have been killed instantly. Ford’s employees and experts in previous lawsuits have since admitted that Ford’s own specially-trained engineers once again “falsely latched” the right front seat passenger into the right seat of the pickup truck used for Crash Test 3888.
The principal engineer on Crash Test 3888 himself admitted in a deposition that the dummy had been buckled into the vehicle in a prep garage one-half mile from the test building, hoisted onto a tow truck, towed over poorly paved ground with potholes and cracks, jacked down from the truck and placed onto the test track, and then accelerated into the barrier. And at no time before the initial impact did the falsely-latched buckle ever unlatch.
Despite these developments, Ford did not begin phasing out the RCF-67 until the mid-1990s, except for a few new car lines developed in the mid-to-late 1980s, which were designed to be equipped from the start with specially designed side-release buckles possessing tongue eject features.
These included the Ford Probe, Taurus, and Mercury Sable. At the same time, Ford and GM were aware that an increasing number of inadvertent unlatching customer complaints and lawsuits were being filed arising from accidents involving RCF-67 buckles.
It was crucial for Ford’s response to these incidents to completely hide them from the public while covertly replacing RCF-67 buckles with the new end-release buckles that buckle manufacturers TRW VSSI and Allied Signal are now providing to Ford.
If you need expert advice on whether you have a latching auto defect, a California false seat belt latching accident lawyer can investigate the evidence to determine if the auto part was to blame.
Inertial Unlatching - A Second Seat Belt Latch Problem
The second problem with the RCF-65, 67/Type I is its susceptibility to becoming unlatched (even when previously fully latched) when a side-load is suddenly applied to the back of the belt buckle (such as during a side-impact collision or sudden rollover of the vehicle).
Under these circumstances, the body of the buckle suddenly moves in the opposite direction of the button, but the inertial forces acting on the button cause it to remain relatively at the station and in place. This effectively causes the release button to move toward the unlatched position, thus releasing the occupant suddenly and unexpectedly.
Because the release occurs due to the inertial forces acting on the button, this type of inadvertent unlatching is called “inertial unlatching.”
Inertial unlatching can easily be demonstrated using an RCF 67 buckle, tongue, and belt by fully latching and then pulling on each end while slapping the back of the buckle firmly against a solid surface.
The tongue will instantly separate from the buckle. Unlike false unlatching, which the buckle and automakers conceded long ago was an inherent characteristic of the RCF-67/Type I buckle, they have steadfastly declared inertial unlatching to be impossible in real-world conditions.
Lawsuits Focusing on Inertial Buckle Unlatching
Major attention to inertial unlatching arose in 1992 when a syndicated CBS program, “Street Stories,” broadcast a segment focusing on several lawsuits that alleged that motorists and passengers (or their heirs) who had been wearing their RCF-67/Type I seat belt buckles suddenly unlatched in accidents involving dynamic side-impact forces and were ejected from their vehicles and killed or seriously injured.
A coalition of consumer groups submitted a petition to the NHTSA shortly after the program aired, requesting that it launch rule-making proceedings to look into “inertial unlatching” and enact laws preventing the release of buckles vulnerable to false latching to the general public.
The reaction by the automakers and buckle vendors was vehement denial that inertial unlatching could occur and vigorous opposition to the petition.
When asked to supply statistics concerning accident claims and lawsuits arising from possible inertial unlatch incidents, the auto industry reported that few claims or suits had been filed implicating inertial unlatching and that the problem was essentially nonexistent.
G.M. claimed that it had commissioned independent research from an accident analysis laboratory in Arizona, which proved that the inertial forces required to achieve an inertial unlatch in an accident were so severe as to be impossible in all but the most severe accidents (where the impact forces were so severe that even a properly-belted occupant could not be expected to survive).
In November 1992, even before the industry’s written responses were received and thoroughly considered, the NHTSA denied the petition because no evidence suggested inertial unlatching was actually a problem in real-world conditions.
Nonetheless, since 1992, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the major automakers, citing inertial unlatching as the cause of deaths and serious injuries to occupants of RCF-67 and Type I-equipped vehicles.
Our California false seat belt latching accident lawyers have handled these types of cases, and in fact, our leading trial attorney, Brian Chase, is known nationwide for his investigative experience uncovering serious auto defects. He wrote two books on the underbelly of the automotive industry and how they cut corners to save money, often not much, but put people in serious danger.
Common Injuries From a Defective Seat Belt Latch
Depending on the details of the collision, such as the speed at which it happened, the angle of contact, and whether or not the occupant was wearing a seat belt at all, injuries resulting from a seat belt failure in an accident can vary greatly.
If a seat belt malfunctions in a crash, it may cause more severe injuries than if it had operated as intended.
1. Head Injuries: Passengers who are not wearing seat belts run the risk of suffering concussions, traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), or fractured skulls when they strike their heads on the dashboard, steering wheel, or windows.
2. Injuries to the Face: A face collision with the dashboard, airbags, steering wheel, or another object may result in cuts, fractures, or severe tooth injuries.
3. Chest Injuries: When a person’s chest strikes the dashboard or steering wheel without being restrained, it can result in internal injuries to the heart and lungs as well as fractures of the sternum.
4. Injuries to the abdomen: As with chest injuries, blunt trauma to the abdomen after a collision can result in internal bleeding, harm to the organs (liver, spleen, kidneys), and injuries to the abdominal wall.
5. Membrane Damage: Unrestrained bodily movement can result in spinal injuries, such as fractures, dislocations, or damage to the spinal cord, which can cause paralysis or other permanent impairments.
6. Pelvic Injuries: When the pelvis is not protected by a seat belt, it can be subjected to powerful forces that result in fractures and harm to the pelvic organs.
7. Leg Injuries: Fractures, dislocations, and soft tissue injuries may result from arms and legs flailing or being flung against interior car components.
8. Injuries from Ejection: The possibility of being ejected from the car is one of the worst consequences of seat belt failure, since it greatly raises the possibility of fatal injury.
Seat belt functionality may be ensured with routine maintenance and inspections. With the massive amount of recalls each year, It’s a good idea to regularly check with your vehicle’s manufacturer to see if you’ve had a recall. If you’ve been injured call our California false seat belt latching accident lawyers at 800-561-4887 for a free consultation.
Elements of a False Latching Seat Belt Defect Case
If you think there were problems with the false latching on your seat belt, you should investigate further to determine how serious the problem is and whether your claim is valid.
- Evidence Preservation: Maintaining the car and the seat belt in the same condition as they were right after the collision is vital. This guarantees that the evidence is preserved for analysis.
- Accident Reconstruction Expert: To evaluate the evidence, an expert in accident reconstruction may be consulted. To find out if there were any manufacturing or design flaws, they would examine the occupant’s kinematics, injury correlation, and seat belt usage.
- Traffic Safety Consultant or Restraint System Engineer: These experts may be hired to examine the seat belt and find tangible proof of usage or malfunction. On the seat belt components, they would search for witness marks or other indicators showing whether the belt was worn and whether incorrect latching caused the failure.
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): Reporting to Authorities If you encounter a car safety issue, that might be a safety flaw or defect.
- Lawsuits and Legal Action: Auto defect lawsuits against the carmaker or seat belt manufacturer arise if it is found that the defective, false latching caused harm or death. These legal actions have the potential to raise awareness of the problem and compensate the injured parties.
Let’s discuss your personal injury case with a free consultation. Call 800-561-4887 to speak with a false latching seat belt accident attorney.
How To Identify A False Seat Belt Latch Defect
Identifying injuries specifically caused by a false latching scenario can be challenging, but specific indicators and steps can help in the identification process:
1. Inconsistency in Injuries:
- Look for injuries that are inconsistent with properly restrained occupants. For example, if the occupant has been thrown forward or ejected from the seat, it suggests that the seat belt was not properly latched.
2. Witness Statements:
- Statements from the injured party or witnesses who observed the occupant attempting to buckle the seat belt when the accident happened or even over time can provide crucial information.
3. Vehicle Inspection:
- A thorough inspection of the seat belt system can reveal defects or malfunctions in the latching mechanism. This might include signs of wear, damage, or failure in the seat belt retractor, buckle, or latch plate not engaging correctly.
4. Injury Pattern Analysis:
- Medical professionals can analyze injury patterns to infer whether a seat belt or lap belt was worn during the crash. For instance, the absence of seat belt marks on the body in a severe frontal collision might indicate that the seat belt was improperly latched.
5. Mechanical Testing:
- Testing the seat belt mechanism can confirm whether it is capable of false latching, appearing engaged but not securely locked. Professionals capable of evaluating the seat belt’s functionality would conduct this testing.
6. Comparison with Properly Restrained Occupants:
- If other occupants in the vehicle were properly restrained and suffered different types or severities of injuries, this comparison might indicate issues with the seat belt mechanism for the injured party.
Our law firm specializes in auto defects and has taken on some of the biggest automakers for dangerous product defects. Not all personal injury attorneys specialize in dangerous and defective auto parts, but a California false seat belt latching accident lawyer at Bisnar Chase does. Call 800-561-4887 to have us evaluate your injury and auto defect claim.
What is the Statute of Limitations for A Seat Belt Defect Claim?
Seat belt latching defects are litigated under California’s auto products liability laws, and have a two-year statute of limitations to file your personal injury claim.
Certain circumstances can extend that time, but you’ll have to discuss those circumstances with your attorney to determine eligibility for your case.
What Are the Signs of a Defective Seat Belt?
Identifying a seat belt defect, including issues like false latching, requires careful examination, sometimes in the aftermath of an accident.
- Audible Click Absence
- Physical Inspection
- Latch Plate Ejection Test
- Buckle and Latch Mechanism Inspection
- Difficulty Buckling or Unbuckling
- Post-Accident Evidence Inspection
Contact a California False Seat belt Latching Accident Lawyer
Contact Bisnar Chase if you’ve had an issue with a malfunctioning seat belt latch that resulted in an injury. We can offer you representation and an investigation into your auto product liability claim. Our false seat belt latch injury attorneys have decades of experience and have won hundreds of millions representing injured plaintiffs with their personal injury claims.
Voted Best Law Firms in America in 2024, our award-winning attorneys have built a reputation for taking on complex auto defect cases with outstanding results.
Some of Our Auto Defect Case Results
- $32,698,073 Auto Product liability: Type of Accident / Injury: Auto Defect – Seat Manufacturers
- $24,744,764 Defective Seatback Failure: Type of Accident / Injury: Defective Seatback
- $14,443,205 Auto Product Liability: Type of Accident / Injury: Auto Defect
- $12,248,000 Auto Product Liability: Type of Accident / Injury: Auto Defect
