Crash Data Services, LLC
| Admissibility of Event Data Recorders for Traffic Accident Reconstruction in Illinois |
| 2/3 of teen passenger deaths occur when other teenagers are driving - Traffic Injury Research Foundation |
The acceptance of EDR data in Illinois stemmed from a car accident in Woodford County on November 6th,
1996. Danielle Bachman, driving a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier, crossed onto the wrong side of the road and crashed
head-on with a delivery van. The cause of the crash was determined to be loss of control on Bachman’s part.
In June 1998, General Motors Corporation recalled all 1996 Chevrolet Cavaliers because of flawed calibration of
vehicle sensing and diagnostic modules (SDMs), GM’s version of an airbag control module. Due to improper
calibration, some SDMs, manufactured by Delphi Automotive Systems and Delco Electronic Systems, inadvertently
deployed the airbags during low speed crashes or when a relatively small object, such as a stone, struck the floor
pan.
Bachman, and her mother, filed a lawsuit in June 1998, alleging that the SDM in Bachman’s 1996 Chevrolet
Cavalier was defective, and it was an unintended deployment of the vehicle’s airbags that caused the crash. In
their complaint, Bachman and her mother noted GM’s recall and claimed that the SDM in Bachman’s car was
hypersensitive to road surfaces on the day of the crash.
In September 2000, Bachman and her mother filed a motion to bar all testimony and evidence pertaining to the
EDR crash data the defense’s experts planned to submit. In October 2000, in response to Bachman and her
mother’s motion, the defendants requested a Frye hearing. In determining the acceptance of expert testimony
with regard to any technology, Illinois generally follows the Frye standard.
The Frye standard was formed after Frye v. United States, a District of Columbia Circuit Court case from 1923,
which addressed the admissibility of polygraph evidence. Under the Frye standard, it is not enough that an expert
testify a particular technique is sound. Frye creates a requirement that the scientific technique must be "generally
accepted” by the relevant scientific community. In addition to the Frye standard, the process of assessing
whether a technology is new or novel was set forth in Harris v Cropmate.
In most jurisdictions, including federal courts, the Frye standard has since been superseded by the Daubert
Standard. The Daubert standard was derived from the 1993 Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals. This more recent standard rejects the need for "general acceptance" and calls for an
independent judicial assessment of reliability. Under Daubert, the courts often consider if a technology has been
peer reviewed and validated in addition to being commonly accepted.
During the Frye hearing for the Bachman case, on behalf of the defendants, engineers for both Delphi and
General Motors presented evidence that airbag control modules, like SDMs, are commonly used throughout the
automotive industry. Engineers went on to explain how the devices control airbag deployment and permanently
record information within their EDRs. The defense’s experts testified that based on scientific testing by
automobile manufacturers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Vetronix, the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and Canadian law enforcement, SDMs were known to accurately and reliably
record crash data within their EDRs.
Based on the evidence presented, the trial court ruled that the method of recording data within the EDR of an
SDM was not new or novel. The court also acknowledged that EDR crash data was generally accepted within the
relevant scientific community. Therefore, the Frye standard was met and the EDR data was consequently allowed
at trial.
During the November 2000 jury trial, Bachman testified that her driver airbag had deployed “out of the blue” and
that the unwarranted deployment rendered her unconscious before the crash with the delivery van. The
defendants offered expert testimony and provided recorded crash data from the EDR contained within the SDM
of Bachman’s vehicle. Contrary to Bachman’s testimony, the defendants’ experts concluded that the SDM in
Bachman’s vehicle had not malfunctioned and the vehicle deployed the airbags as a result of the collision with the
delivery van. The trial court jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of the defendants and against Bachman and
her mother.
In 2002, Bachman and her mother filed an appeal heard by the 4th District Appellate Court of Illinois. As the
primary basis for appeal, Bachman and her mother argued that the trial court erred in its denial of their motion in
limine, which would have excluded the EDR evidence and related opinion testimony.
The appellate court disagreed with Bachman. The trial court’s decision to allow the EDR evidence was affirmed.
In the appellate court’s opinion, EDR technology was not new or novel and was generally accepted within its
respective field. Thus, the Frye standard had been appropriately applied with regard to EDR technology and legal
precedence was set in Illinois.
To read the full ruling, click here.
1996. Danielle Bachman, driving a 1996 Chevrolet Cavalier, crossed onto the wrong side of the road and crashed
head-on with a delivery van. The cause of the crash was determined to be loss of control on Bachman’s part.
In June 1998, General Motors Corporation recalled all 1996 Chevrolet Cavaliers because of flawed calibration of
vehicle sensing and diagnostic modules (SDMs), GM’s version of an airbag control module. Due to improper
calibration, some SDMs, manufactured by Delphi Automotive Systems and Delco Electronic Systems, inadvertently
deployed the airbags during low speed crashes or when a relatively small object, such as a stone, struck the floor
pan.
Bachman, and her mother, filed a lawsuit in June 1998, alleging that the SDM in Bachman’s 1996 Chevrolet
Cavalier was defective, and it was an unintended deployment of the vehicle’s airbags that caused the crash. In
their complaint, Bachman and her mother noted GM’s recall and claimed that the SDM in Bachman’s car was
hypersensitive to road surfaces on the day of the crash.
In September 2000, Bachman and her mother filed a motion to bar all testimony and evidence pertaining to the
EDR crash data the defense’s experts planned to submit. In October 2000, in response to Bachman and her
mother’s motion, the defendants requested a Frye hearing. In determining the acceptance of expert testimony
with regard to any technology, Illinois generally follows the Frye standard.
The Frye standard was formed after Frye v. United States, a District of Columbia Circuit Court case from 1923,
which addressed the admissibility of polygraph evidence. Under the Frye standard, it is not enough that an expert
testify a particular technique is sound. Frye creates a requirement that the scientific technique must be "generally
accepted” by the relevant scientific community. In addition to the Frye standard, the process of assessing
whether a technology is new or novel was set forth in Harris v Cropmate.
In most jurisdictions, including federal courts, the Frye standard has since been superseded by the Daubert
Standard. The Daubert standard was derived from the 1993 Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow
Pharmaceuticals. This more recent standard rejects the need for "general acceptance" and calls for an
independent judicial assessment of reliability. Under Daubert, the courts often consider if a technology has been
peer reviewed and validated in addition to being commonly accepted.
During the Frye hearing for the Bachman case, on behalf of the defendants, engineers for both Delphi and
General Motors presented evidence that airbag control modules, like SDMs, are commonly used throughout the
automotive industry. Engineers went on to explain how the devices control airbag deployment and permanently
record information within their EDRs. The defense’s experts testified that based on scientific testing by
automobile manufacturers, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Vetronix, the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and Canadian law enforcement, SDMs were known to accurately and reliably
record crash data within their EDRs.
Based on the evidence presented, the trial court ruled that the method of recording data within the EDR of an
SDM was not new or novel. The court also acknowledged that EDR crash data was generally accepted within the
relevant scientific community. Therefore, the Frye standard was met and the EDR data was consequently allowed
at trial.
During the November 2000 jury trial, Bachman testified that her driver airbag had deployed “out of the blue” and
that the unwarranted deployment rendered her unconscious before the crash with the delivery van. The
defendants offered expert testimony and provided recorded crash data from the EDR contained within the SDM
of Bachman’s vehicle. Contrary to Bachman’s testimony, the defendants’ experts concluded that the SDM in
Bachman’s vehicle had not malfunctioned and the vehicle deployed the airbags as a result of the collision with the
delivery van. The trial court jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of the defendants and against Bachman and
her mother.
In 2002, Bachman and her mother filed an appeal heard by the 4th District Appellate Court of Illinois. As the
primary basis for appeal, Bachman and her mother argued that the trial court erred in its denial of their motion in
limine, which would have excluded the EDR evidence and related opinion testimony.
The appellate court disagreed with Bachman. The trial court’s decision to allow the EDR evidence was affirmed.
In the appellate court’s opinion, EDR technology was not new or novel and was generally accepted within its
respective field. Thus, the Frye standard had been appropriately applied with regard to EDR technology and legal
precedence was set in Illinois.
To read the full ruling, click here.
| Providing quality traffic accident investigation and reconstruction |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Our experts are always available to fulfill your accident reconstruction needs. |
| 1-847-217-6644 |
| Reach our reconstruction experts by email: |
| Call today for a free consultation: |
| Home | Accident Reconstruction | Crash Data Retrieval | Our Experts | Contact Us | FAQ | Case Law | Site Map | Links |
The photos on the website are the property of Crash Data Services, LLC and may not be used, reproduced or copied for any reason. By using this website, you agree to our terms & conditions and privacy policy. |
|
