| Home | Accident Reconstruction | Crash Data Retrieval | Photos | Videos | Our Experts | Contact Us | FAQ | Case Law | Policies | Site Map | Links | Search |
| Copyright © 2007-2012 Crash Data Services, LLC All rights reserved |
| Our experts are always available to fulfill your accident reconstruction needs. Call today for a free consultation: 847-217-6644 Or reach our reconstruction experts by email |
| Admissibility of Event Data Recorders for Traffic Accident Reconstruction in Illinois |
Providing Quality Accident Reconstruction and Investigation
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.
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.
 | The content and photos on this 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 | |
Disclaimer: Crash Data Services, LLC and crashdataservices.net provide the information in this web site for informational purposes only. The information is not intended to
be legal advice or an expert opinion and should not be construed as such. The use of this site does not create a contractor/client relationship with any employee of Crash
Data Services, LLC. Each investigation is different. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. The results of any investigation/reconstruction do not
guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by Crash Data Services, LLC
be legal advice or an expert opinion and should not be construed as such. The use of this site does not create a contractor/client relationship with any employee of Crash
Data Services, LLC. Each investigation is different. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. The results of any investigation/reconstruction do not
guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by Crash Data Services, LLC