Rollover crashes are roughly two percent of all crashes and roughly one-third of all passenger-vehicle occupant fatalities. The reason for that disproportion is well documented. When a passenger vehicle rolls, the roof is the primary structural member protecting the occupant compartment from the ground. Roofs that lack sufficient strength collapse, intrude into the survival space, and cause head and cervical-spine injuries that proper roof design would have prevented.
Roof crush litigation has driven decades of public and regulatory debate. The auto industry’s official position—that occupants “dive” into the roof before the roof crushes—has been steadily eroded by independent research from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and NHTSA, by the upgraded roof strength standard, and by jury verdicts that have rejected the diving theory in case after case. Cronauer Law handles roof crush rollover cases nationwide.
No upfront costs & fees
Means you can afford a lawyer now
And our trial lawyer has a 7 year winning streak…
The fundamental rule of crashworthy design—articulated and accepted across every other crash mode—is that the vehicle must maintain the occupant survival space during reasonably foreseeable collisions. Front, side, and rear impact engineering all proceed from the survival-space premise. There is no logical reason rollovers should be different, and the IIHS, NHTSA, and the modern engineering community confirm they are not.
In 1975, GM engineer Dr. Edward Moffatt offered the hypothesis that during a rollover a fully restrained occupant “dives” into the roof structure and incurs head and neck injury before any roof deformation occurs. The diving theory became the foundation of the auto industry’s defense of weak roofs. Subsequent GM research—the Malibu I and II tests in the 1980s—was offered in support, and Ford-funded research by Exponent’s CRIS program in the early 2000s extended the narrative.
Independent re-analysis, however, undermined the diving theory. The Malibu tests in fact showed that occupants in production-roof vehicles measured the highest head and neck loads, while reinforced-roof vehicles did not. Subsequent IIHS and NHTSA research established a strong relationship between roof strength and injury risk. The diving theory has been largely abandoned in modern peer-reviewed literature; only paid defense witnesses still meaningfully advance it.
In 2008, the IIHS published a study (Brumbelow et al.) finding a strong correlation between roof strength and injury risk, and concluding that increasing a vehicle’s strength-to-weight ratio from 1.5 to 2.5—within five inches of plate displacement—reduces the risk of fatal or incapacitating injury by approximately 28 percent. IIHS President Adrian Lund stated publicly that strengthening a vehicle’s roof reduces injury risk “and reduces it a lot.”
In 2007 and 2010, NHTSA published research notes confirming statistically significant relationships between roof intrusion and injury severity, and between roof strength-to-weight ratio and intrusion. The agency’s 2010 note concluded that “greater roof strength” produces “fewer injuries.”
FMVSS 216, 49 C.F.R. § 571.216, prescribes a static roof strength test. A test plate is applied at a defined angle to the front edge of the roof. The vehicle must support a load of a defined multiple of its curb weight before the plate displaces five inches.
From 1971 until 2009, the standard required only 1.5 times curb weight. The 2009 upgrade increased the requirement to 3.0 times curb weight for vehicles up to 6,000 pounds. The history of how the original standard was watered down—from a proposed dynamic dolly rollover test in 1971, to a static two-side test, to a one-side test, after sustained automaker opposition—is documented in the rulemaking record and is commonly admitted at trial.
The defense will assert: (1) the diving theory; (2) FMVSS 216 compliance; (3) that the occupant’s injury occurred before any meaningful roof deformation; (4) that occupant kinematics during a rollover are unpredictable; and (5) that the occupant was unbelted or otherwise out of position.
The plaintiff’s response is reconstructive. We rebuild the rollover with high-speed video analogs, document the timing of roof intrusion, and demonstrate—through occupant kinematics and biomechanical testimony—that the head and neck injury occurred during the period of intrusion, not before it. We pair the engineering with the IIHS/NHTSA research and with the manufacturer’s own documents on roof strength feasibility, often including foreign-market versions of the same vehicle with stronger roofs.
Roof crush cases are catastrophic-injury cases by definition: fatal traumatic brain injury, cervical spinal cord injury at C5–C7 (with quadriplegia or partial quadriplegia), and severe scalp and facial trauma. Damages presentation includes life-care planning, vocational economics, attendant-care costs, equipment, and the full pain-and-suffering and loss-of-enjoyment-of-life elements. Where the law and facts support it, punitive damages are routinely sought, supported by the manufacturer’s documentary opposition to roof strength rulemaking.
Because the manufacturer pays for it. Defense experts continue to assert that occupants dive into the roof before deformation, despite the weight of independent research. Plaintiffs counter the theory with the IIHS and NHTSA studies, with re-analysis of the original Malibu tests, and with case-specific reconstruction.
Strength-to-weight ratio (SWR) is the FMVSS 216 metric for roof strength: the force the roof can support before deforming five inches, divided by the curb weight. A SWR of 1.5 was the original standard; 3.0 is the upgraded standard for newer light vehicles.
Yes. Compliance with FMVSS 216 does not preempt or defeat a state-law product liability claim. The standard is a minimum, not a maximum. The Supreme Court’s preemption decisions and the Safety Act’s savings clause preserve common-law claims.
Reconstruction of the rollover, post-crash measurement of roof intrusion (vertical roof intrusion is a documented predictor of head, neck, and face injury), biomechanical reconstruction of occupant kinematics, and pattern-of-injury analysis. Where the head and neck injury pattern is consistent with downward and inward roof loading, the case is strong.
No. Roof crush cases are not preempted; they have been tried to verdict in many jurisdictions following Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., 562 U.S. 323 (2011).
Ranked top 10 in the Nation
The National Trial Lawyers recognizes Nicholas Cronauer as one of the top 10 lawyers
under the age of 40 in the nation.
With you at every step
Cronauer Law has years of experience representing clients who have been seriously injured.
We know what it takes to win, and have prepared the the steps we need to take to get the best outcome clients can expect from hiring a lawyer.
Contact us to get the process started. Our lawyers will explain the laws around your case at no cost to you.
We work with the insurance companies to ensure they fulfill their duties to cover the costs related to the crash
A Serious injury can dramatically change how you plan on reaching your life goals. We’ll work with you long after the case has won to ensure your life gets to where it needs to be
We take pride in what we do
We understand that most people may not have hired a lawyer before, so we make it as easy and clear as possible to understand what We will answer all of your questions, and guide you through this process. We are here to help you.
If you were injured in any way–medically, emotionally, physically, in a car, at work, on the street–then you may have a case. Employers, companies, and individuals have a “duty of care.” This term refers to each person’s obligation to avoid actions or situations that endanger other people.
Personal injury attorneys offer their services on what is called a “contingency fee” basis. That means we pay for all the upfront costs of your case–hiring specialists, paying court fees, even assessing medical care. You owe us nothing, and we only take a fee if you win your case.
As soon as possible, ideally. Give our personal injury law firm a call to speak with one of our staff members confidentially, even if it’s not normal business hours where you are. Also feel free to fill out our contact form with some basic information about you and your case. A member of our team will get back to you as soon as possible.
Once we’ve investigated the basic details of your injuries and your case, we’ll be able to tell you how much compensation you’re entitled to. While we (and no ethical attorney) can make promises regarding your case, we can help calculate the costs and lost wages caused by your harm.
Cronauer law injury attorneys have tried virtually every type and size of plaintiff’s claim possible. We’ve handled cases on behalf of people injured in car crashes, Engineers injured in a slip and fall, and even businessmen who have been wronged by their partners. Our firm has made a name for itself in a variety of legal areas. Our results in complex areas like commercial litigation, trucking accidents, Criminal Defense, and Product Liability barely scratch the surface. Whatever the nature of your injury, we have the experience and resources to demand compensation on your behalf.
Enter as much information as you can. Skip any questions that you do not know right away or does not apply to you.