Undamaged Bumper Scam

The “Undamaged” Bumper Scam

By Sal Fariello

All too often a lawyer tries a case for a credible plaintiff using a doctor who offers well articulated medical testimony, only to get an adverse verdict from a jury whose minds were unalterably prejudiced by having viewed photographs of the plaintiff's vehicle which seemingly showed trivial damage or no damage at all. The jury concludes that such minor damage could not possibly cause the injuries claimed. A corollary of that conclusion is that the plaintiff is a liar, and perhaps too the plaintiff's doctor is a liar. More often than not however, the defense attorney is a liar and doesn't even know it because he or she has fallen prey to what may be one of the biggest scams against the consumer and against the courts that has ever been contrived for the sake of illicit profit.

Too bold a statement? Too impossible? Consider the evidence and then decide for yourself. Let's start with the history of the energy absorbing bumper, the bumper which often shows no ostensible damage in a minor impact, and which supposedly proves that the occupants of the vehicle could not have been injured.

Prior to 1973 there were no energy absorbing bumpers on cars. My experience with Allstate, State Farm and other insurance companies is that their defense attorneys are rather fond of displaying photos to juries showing little or no ostensible damage to the rear bumper of the plaintiff's car and then insinuating that nobody can be hurt with so little bumper damage. In my opinion, this may be the worst sort of fraud on the court that any litigant could perpetrate.

Some experts erroneously claim that we should accept a Delta V (speed change) of 5 mph as the threshold for possible injury. Below that Delta V, there is supposedly a very low probability of neck or back injury. Since we know that virtually every passenger car on the road today can sustain a Delta V of at least 6 mph before there is any ostensible bumper damage, then what does lack of ostensible bumper damage have to do with injury? Nothing, and here's why.

Before 1973 there were no bumper standards. Since the 1973 model year energy absorbing bumpers have begun to emerge. The foam core and honeycomb core bumpers we see today are the most capable of all bumpers in handling high crash energy with no ostensible bumper damage.

The advent of energy absorbing bumpers has given rise to the evolution of the science of low-speed impact analysis. This science has only existed since 1995 or so. Before 1973 bumpers were pretty plastic in their behavior. “Plastic” means they crushed permanently at a pretty low speed. Because of their design, there was a readily apparent correlation between impact severity and residual crush damage. This correlation no longer exists. A car equipped with a foam core bumper or even an isolator-type bumper may sustain frame damage (more about frame damage later in this chapter) before the bumper even gets damaged.

This was not true before 1973. By the way, a foam core bumper means one that is equipped with a section of energy absorbing foam mounted in front of a reinforcement bar. A similar design is the so-called honeycomb energy absorber An isolator-type bumper usually does not have any foam or honeycomb. Instead, it mounts the bumper on a shock absorber at each end. The shock absorber does just what its name implies, that is, it absorbs energy when it compresses.

It is grossly inappropriate to deceive a jury into believing that an ostensibly undamaged bumper reflects the severity of a crash when in fact the design of the bumper is such that its purpose is to survive a substantial crash while exhibiting little residual damage. By law the bumper is supposed to protect the safety systems on the car, but in fact the bumper protects itself by virtue of is energy absorption capability. There is no validity to the argument that a jury should see a bumper photo because it reflects the damage to the car (or lack thereof). Before 1973 such a photo would reflect something meaningful about the damage. Now however, it reflects nothing, since the present day design elasticity (tendency to rebound rather than permanently crush) of the bumper compared to the pre-1973 plasticity changes the whole nature of the residual damage that may appear.

This article is excerpted from Chapter 2 of Whiplash Injury, by Sal Fariello, an important tool for plaintiff's counsel and unrepresented whiplash victims.