`of Transportation
`National Highway
`Traffic Safety
`Administration
`
`\
`
`1
`
`DOT HS 808598
`
`Technical Report
`
`July 1997
`
`Injuries Associated with Specific Motor
`Vehicle Hazards: Radiators, Batteries,
`Power Windows, and Power Roofs
`
`This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 1
`
`
`
`r
`
`This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of
`National Highway
`Traffic
`Safety
`Transportation,
`Administration,
`in the interest of information exchange.
`The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this
`publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily
`those of the Department of Transportation or the National
`Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United States
`Government assumes no liability for its contents or use
`thereof.
`If trade or manufacturer’s name or products are
`mentioned,
`it is because they are considered essential
`to
`the object of the publication and should not be construed
`as an endorsement. The United States Government does
`not endorse products or manufacturers.
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 2
`
`
`
`1. RaPod No.
`
`DOT HS 808598
`
`4 litle and Subtitle
`
`Injuries Associated with Specific Motor Vehicle Hazards: Radiators,
`
`Batteries, Power Windows, and Power Roofs
`
`Richardson, Henri A.
`
`9. Performing Organization Name and Address
`
`Mathematical Analysis Division; National Center for Statistics and Analysis;
`Research and Development, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration;
`U.S. Department of Transportation
`400 Seventh Street, S. W.
`Washington, D. C. 20590
`
`12. Sponsoring Agency Nanw and Address
`
`2. Government Accession No,
`
`3. Recipient’s Cata!eg No.
`
`Technical Report Documentation
`
`Page
`
`5. Report Date
`
`July 1997
`
`~
`
`NRD-31
`&Performing Organization Repoti No
`
`10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
`
`/ 1!3. Type olRe@and
`
`Period Covered
`
`NHTSA Technical Report
`
`14. Sponsoring Agency Code
`
`I,
`
`15 Supplementary Notas
`
`16. Abstract
`
`This report provides estimates of the numbers of persons injured as a result of hazards involving four
`
`specific motor vehicle components: radiators, batteries, power windows, and power roofs. The injury estimates
`
`are based upon data from the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance
`
`System (NEISS). NEISS collects data on a nationally representative sample of consumer product-related
`injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms. NHTSA has used NEISS to obtain data on injuries associated with
`specific motor vehicle hazards that are non-crash related. During the period 10/1/93 through 9/30/94, data from
`
`591 (409 involving radiators; 171 involving batteries; 10 involving power windows; and 1 involving a power roof) cases
`
`of persons injured and treated in hospital emergency rooms were collected in NEISS. Based upon these cases,
`
`it is estimated that in a twelve-month period: 19,638 persons are injured due to radiators; 8,134 are injured due to
`
`batteries (7,051 due to motor vehicle batteries); and 499 are injured due to power windows. The one case involving
`
`a power roof was a result of the injured person being ejected due to a traffic crash, and therefore, not related to
`
`a hazard associated with the power roof itself. The report provides breakdowns of the injury estimates for radiators,
`
`*
`
`batteries, and power windows by.activity producing the injury, injury diagnosis and severity, injured body region, and
`
`age/sex of the injured.
`
`17. Key Words
`
`16 Distribution Statement
`
`motor vehicle hazards, non-crash related, injury diagnosis,
`Injury severity
`19. Sscwty Classif.
`(of this rapoti)
`
`20. Security Ciassi.
`
`(of this page)
`
`This document is available to the public through the
`National Technical Information Service.
`
`21. No. of Pages
`
`22. Price
`
`Unclassified
`
`Unclassified
`
`52
`
`Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
`
`Reproduction of completed page authorized
`
`I
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 3
`
`
`
`Table of Contentgj
`
`EagQ
`
`Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
`Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
`Possible Limitations of NEISS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
`Findings
`
`.
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5
`icle Radiators
`i
`In.iuries Assoc ated w~th Motor Veh
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8
`Body TypeofInvolvedMotorVehicle
`Vehicle Model Year
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...9
`Vehicle Manufacturer
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Gender . . . . . . . . . ... . ... . . . .
`: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Injury Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`MostInjuredBodyPart
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Injury Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`MedicalDisposition
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Injury Severity and Medical Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`*S1
`r Vehicle Batte v Ex.pr
`
`i
`Iniuries Associated wthMoto
`Injury Producing Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Injury Diagnosis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`MostInjured Body Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Injury Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`ith Moto r Vehicle Power Window s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`i
`lniuries Assoc atedw
`Injury Producing Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`InjuryDiagnosis
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
`Most Injured Body Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Injury Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`16
`17
`18
`19
`
`21
`22
`22
`23
`24
`
`25
`26
`26
`27
`27
`28
`
`.
`iuries Associated with Motor VehiclePowe roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`h-
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . .
`
`29
`
`References
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....”.............3O
`
`iii
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 4
`
`
`
`A: The National Elect ronic Iniurv Surveillance Svstem
`Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A-l
`The NEISS Hospital Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A-3
`Limitations ofNEISS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A-4
`
`.
`riabl~
`B: NHTSA Special Studv Va
`Descriptions of7VariablesCollected
`
`forAllSampleCases
`
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..B-l
`
`C: Telephone Follow-Back Questionnaire
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C-l
`General Questions
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
`Radiators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C-2
`BatteryExplosions .
`. . . . . . . . . .
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C-4
`Power-OperatedWindows
`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C-8
`Power-Operated Roofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..C-9
`
`iv
`
`I
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 5
`
`
`
`Introduction
`
`.
`
`In recent years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has had a
`continuing and growing need for reliable national estimates of the number of injuries associated
`with specific motor vehicle non-crash type occurrences, which generally involve stationary
`vehicles. In this connection, there is a current need to monitor incidents associated injuries to
`persons involving four specific motor vehicle related hazards, i.e., radiator scalding; battery
`explosion; power window and power roof operation and/or malfunction.
`
`NHTSA has a particular interest in injuries associated with motor vehicle radiators, as
`these appear to be the most common of the four hazards examined in this study. This is most
`certainly related to the conditions under which motor vehicle radiators operate, i.e., motor vehicle
`engine cooling fluid (coolant) may operate at temperatures as high as 245-265 degrees F. and at
`16-17 lbs. of pressure. Under these temperature and pressure conditions, a hasty removal of the
`standard radiator cap usually results in scalding fluid exploding out of the neck of the radiator,
`with sometimes severe burn injury to the person opening the radiator. Because incidents of this
`type are not an uncommon occurrence, over the years NHTSA has received letters from the
`public and from medical personnel at hospital facilities in support of action to establish standards
`for safety locks for radiator caps.
`
`In April 1992, NHTSA was petitioned to establish a new safety standard regarding motor
`vehicle radiator caps. The petitioner wanted the new standard to require any new vehicle sold in
`the U.S. with a water-cooled engine to be equipped with a radiator cap that automatically locks in
`a closed position when the temperature of the engine coolant is 125 degrees F. or greater. The
`cap would automatically unlock, allowing for a safe opening of the radiator, when the temperature
`of the coolant falls below 125 degrees F. This type of radiator cap is generally referred to as a
`“thermal-locking radiator cap.” The purpose of this type of cap is to prevent the chance scalding
`of motorists, gas station attendants and others who hastily open hot radiators of motor vehicles.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`In support of a new radiator cap safety standard, this petition stated that:
`
`Radiator cap scalding incidents are increasing, and will continue to increase as motor
`vehicle use rises despite safety education and manufacturer warning labels.
`
`Over 100,000 radiator cap scalding incidents occur annually in the U.S., and over 20,000
`victims of such occurrences every year require treatment in hospital emergency rooms and
`other medical burn care facilities.
`
`Enactment of a safety standard for thermal-locking radiator caps would result, not only in
`a number of economic and overall benefits to society as a whole, but in an overall
`improvement in motor vehicle safety, especially for senior citizens, handicapped and
`otherwise frail persons. There would be a reduction in the pain, suffering and scarring
`sustained by radiator cap burn victims, especially in view of the fact that chemicals
`currently used in coolant mixtures compound the severity of scald injuries by increasing
`any resulting infections. Finally, enactment of the new safety standard for thermal-locking
`radiator caps would have no adverse impact on the environment.
`
`1
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 6
`
`
`
`To support the contention that radiator cap scalding incidents are increasing and that over
`100,000 such incidents occur annually in the U.S., the petitioner submitted four (4) medical
`journal articles as supporting data. A subsequent NHTSA review of these articles found:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Two of the articles discussed radiator-related scalding that actually occurred outside of the
`U.S. The first of these articles states that over a 6-year period from 1982-1987,72 cases
`of car radiator burns (average of 12 per year) were treated at a hospital burn unit in Doha,
`Qatar. The second article states that during a 13-year period from 1975-1987,80 patients
`(average of approx. 6 per year) were treated at a hospital burn unit in Beersheva, Israel.
`
`The third medical article notes that during the summer of 1989, 11 patients were treated in
`the emergency room of the hospital in Nassau County, N.Y. for second and third degree
`burns resulting from overheated car radiator fluid.
`,,
`The fourth and final article states that during a 3-year period from January, 1979 through
`December 1981, 86 patients (average of 29 per year) with radiator-related burn injuries
`were hospitalized at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Burn Center. This article
`further states that, during the same 3-year period at that hospital, twice that number of
`patients (average of 58 per year) were treated for radiator-associated injuries and released
`without being hospitalized.
`
`None of the articles included extrapolation of these data to national estimates of the
`number of injuries associated with the last two medical articles described above to extrapolate the
`data to U.S. national totals. No similar attempt was made by the petitioner in support of the
`contention that radiator cap scalding incidents are increasing, that more than 100,000 such
`incidents occur annually in the U.S., and that 20,000 victims of these incidents are treated every
`year in hospital emergency rooms or at burn care facilities.
`
`Of particular concern to NHTSA in this matter was that no data base was currently
`available within the Agency to validate and estimate the magnitude of the injury problem
`associated with non-crash related motor vehicle hazards. Recalling that the U.S. Consumer
`Product Safety Commission (CPSC) had at one time tracked several automobile product-related
`injuries, such as those from radiator caps in the late seventies and from exploding batteries in the
`early eighties, it was concluded that CPSC was still the only existing and reliable source of these
`much needed data, especially in view of the fact that CPSC data are sampled hospital emergency
`room data that can be projected to the U.S. national level. Thus, the decision was made to
`provide funding to CPSC to add to its existing data collection effort some specific areas related to
`NHTSA’S crash avoidance mission. In addition to obtaining data on injuries involving radiator
`caps, NHTSA decided to gather information on injuries involving batteries, power windows, and
`power roofs.
`
`Data Collection
`
`As a result of NHTSA’S need for injury data on certain non-crash type occurrences
`involving motor vehicles, data from CPSC was obtained from twelve (12) consecutive months of
`
`2
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 7
`
`
`
`incidents of injuries to persons involving injuries associated with four (4) specific types of motor
`vehicle equipment:
`radiators, batteries, power windows and power roofs. These data were
`gathered for the twelve month period beginning October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994
`under an Interagency Agreement between NHTSA and CPSC, using CPSC’s National Electronic
`Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) to obtain data.
`
`..
`
`NEISS is a three level system which collects data on injuries related to consumer products
`from a sampleof91
`of the 6,127 hospitals nationwide with at least six beds that provide
`emergency care on a continuing twenty four hour basis. The three levels of the NEISS system are
`the initial surveillance of emergency room injuries; follow-back telephone interviews with injured
`persons or witnesses; and more comprehensive on-site investigations with injured persons and/or
`witnesses. Additional details regarding the NEISS data collection system can be found in
`Appendix A.
`
`For this particular study, core surveillance and special study data to meet NHTSA’S needs
`were obtained on a selected sample of591 NEISS cases collected during the subject twelve
`month period. For 148 of the591 cases, telephone interviews were conducted to obtain additional
`in-depth information on the circumstances of the incident involving the specific motor vehicle
`hazard. An interview was unsuccessfully attempted on 128 of the remaining 443 cases. The
`breakdown of total sample cases obtained, by hazard type and interview completion status, is
`given in Table 1.
`
`Table 1
`Interview Completion Status for NEISS Cases in
`NHTSA Motor Vehicle Hazard Study
`October 1993- Sentember 1994
`— —
`
`Interview Status
`
`—-—.-
`
`Motor Vehicle
`Product
`Involved
`
`3
`
`Radiator
`
`Battery
`
`Power Window
`
`Power Roof
`a
`
`D
`
`Completed
`
`Attempted and
`Not Completed
`
`No Interview
`
`Total
`
`105
`
`34
`
`9
`
`148
`0
`
`97
`
`31
`
`0
`
`128
`0
`
`207
`
`106
`
`1
`
`315
`1
`
`409
`
`171
`
`10
`
`591
`1
`
`Details regarding the surveillance, special study and telephone interview data gathered in
`NEISS for this study are provided in Appendices A, B and C, respectively. All NEISS data
`gathered for the study were used in the analysis for this report.
`
`3
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 8
`
`
`
`Possible Limitations of NEISS Data
`
`This study provides national estimates of the number of persons injured each yem as a
`result of hazards associated with four (4) speci.ilc types of motor vehicle equipment, i.e.,
`radiators, batteries, power windows, and power roofs. The injured were all treated in hospitals
`equipped with emergency rooms. Because these injury estimates are based on NEISS data
`collection, they are necessarily conservative for the following reasons. First, an indeterminate
`number of injury cases are not captured in the NEISS sample. NEISS does not collect injury data
`from other medical cme facilities (walk-in clinics, etc.) or from physicians in private practice.
`Secondly, an undeterminable number of injured persons that were treated at NEISS hospital
`emergency rooms during the study period may not have been included by the NEISS data
`collectors. This is mostly due to missing or incomplete information in the emergency room report
`regarding details of the incident. These latter cases are the so-called “missed” NEISS cases,
`generally a very small number compared to the far larger first catego~ of fully identilable,
`relevant cases excluded altogether from the NEISS sample. Additional and more complete det&ls
`regarding NEISS data limitations can be found in Appendix A.
`
`Findings
`
`The data shown in Tables 2 through 12 provide national estimates of the number of
`persons injured in non-crash incidents involving three of the four specific motor vehicle hazards
`annually based upon the NEISS ,data. As discussed earlier, these estimates maybe considered
`conservative due to the possible limitations of NEISS data. Tables 2 through 12 present national
`estimates for the number of persons injured due to hazards associated with motor vehicle
`radiators. Tables 13 through 16 and Tables 17 through 21 provide estimates of the number of
`persons injured due to hazards associated with motor vehicle batteries and motor vehicle power
`windows, respectively.
`(Percentages may not add to 100% in every table due to rounding.)
`A brief discussion regarding the fiidings for injuries associated with motor vehicle power roofs is
`presented at the end of the report.
`
`5
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 9
`
`
`
`h. iuries Associated with Motor Vehicle Radiators
`
`During the 12-month study period October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994, an
`est.hnated 19,638 persons were injured nationwide as a result of involvement
`in various ways with
`motor vehicle radiators. Of these 19,638 injured persons, the majority, approximately 77 percent,
`were injured as a result of activities associated with the radiator cap. Almost 73 percent of the
`radiator cap injuries were resulted from removing (or attempting to remove) the cap from the
`radiator. A surprising 25 percent of the radiator cap injuries were described as due to the radiator
`cap “exploding”, i.e., the cap being ejected or dislodged from the neck of the radiator in some
`way. These situations involved mostly stationary vehicles, however, in situations in which the
`vehicle was moving, vehicle movement, coupled with excessive radiator pressure may have been
`contributors to the radiator cap ejection. The remaining 2 percent of the radiator cap injuries
`were associated with attempts to place the cap on the radiator, or because a loose, untightened, or
`badly fitting cap allowed the radiator to boil over.
`
`Not surprisingly, radiator hoses accounted for the second highest number of injured
`persons, about 12 percent (2,370/19,638). Most were injured while replacing or attempting to
`replace a radiator hose, however, some were injured while doing something else such as checking
`or working on the vehicle’s engine and accidentally brushing against or opening a hole in one of
`these hoses in the process.
`
`Noteworthy in these data is that the radiator reservoir accounted for the third highest
`number of injured persons. Seven (7) percent (1,403/19,638) were injured as a direct result of
`handling the radiator reservoir (rather than the radiator cap), usually while attempting to add
`coolant to the radiator.
`
`The remaining 747 injured persons: approximately 4 percent of the estimated 19,638
`injured persons, occurred as follows: bum injury while working on some other part of the
`vehicle’s cooling system such as a heater, heater hose, water pump, or thermostat (316 persons);
`bum or non-bum injury directly or indirectly due to the radiator in some way (e.g., cut by, fell on
`radiator, etc.; 243 persons); and non-burn injury caused by the radiator fan, fan belt or grill, by
`fumes from overheating, or by accidental ingestion of radiator fluid (188 persons).
`
`Tables 2-11 present descriptive details on the injuries to persons by the body type of
`involved vehicle, vehicle model year, vehicle manufacturer, age, gender, injury diagnosis, the most
`injured body region, injury seventy category, medical disposition, injury severity and medical
`disposition combined, and by season of the year. Percentages may not add to 100% due to
`rounding.
`
`Automobiles were involved in nearly91 percent of the radiator cap injuries; pickups in
`approximately 7 percen~ vans in about 3 percent and trucks in the remainder [Table 2]. For
`injuries involving the radiator reservoir, automobiles were involved 100 percent of the time.
`Injuries associated with the radiator hose appeared to follow a different pattern, i.e., vans were
`associated with 22 percent of the injuries, while automobiles were associated with 70 percent.
`
`6
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 10
`
`
`
`For the radiator cap injuries, almost two-thirds (65 percent) of the motor vehicles involved
`were 1980-89 models, with slightly more than one-half of these (52 percent) being model-year
`1980-84 [Table 3]. About 26 percent of these incidents involved 1975-79 models; about 2
`percent involved models older than 1975, and less than 1 percent involved later model years, i.e.,
`1990-94. For the radiator reservoir, almost one-half (49 percent) of the injuries involved 1985-89
`model year vehicles and no vehicles of model year older than 1975 were involved. A large
`portion of the incidents associated with the injuries related to the radiator hose (41 percent)
`involved 1985-89 vehicles. For all of the radiator cases combined, two-thirds (67 percent) of the
`vehicles involved were 1980-89 models.
`
`The manufacturer of the vehicles were involved in injuries associated with radiator cap
`incidents were: General Motors -62 percen~ Chrysler -17 percen~ Ford -12 percen~ Other
`Domestic and Foreign -3 and 6 percen~ respectively. The radiator reservoir injuries differed
`somewhat in that 46 percent of the vehicles involved were manufactured by General Motors, and
`foreign vehicles were involved in 34 percent of the injuries [Table 4].
`
`As might be expected, about 2 percent of the persons injured involving the radiator cap
`were less than 15 years of age [Table 5]. About 40 percent were 15-29 years of age, 37 percent
`were 30-44, 17 percent were 45-59, and the remaining 4 percent were 60 years of age or older.
`Compared to the radiator cap cases, the frequency of those injured by hot fluid/steam from the
`radiator reservoir differed markedly for age groups 15-29 and 45-59.
`In the cases of injuries to
`children involving radiator hose incidents, the children appeared to be present as bystanders or
`passed by while an adult was working with the vehicle.
`In these situations, children were sprayed
`with hot radiator fluid from hoses that either broke open during repair (by adults) or burst open
`on their own, some even while the vehicle was moving.
`It is currently not known if these noted
`differences in proportions of injured persons, by type of radiator involvement for certain victim
`age groups, reflect actual differences in injury patterns for the type of activity associated with
`radiators or occurred due to chance.
`
`More than 86 percent of the persons injured involving radiator caps were males. All
`persons injured involving the radiator reservoirs were male. Males represented 89 percent of all
`persons injured in all types of incidents involving radiators [Table 6].
`
`As expected, scalding burns from hot radiator fluid released from the radiator were the
`predominant form of injury involving radiator caps. Almost91 percent were injured in this
`manner [Table 7]. More than 7 percent of the persons injured in these incidents sustained chemical
`or thermal burns, while almost 2 percent sustained contusions, abrasions, lacerations or fractures,
`mostly caused by striking against some part of the vehicle as a reaction to hot radiator fluid. The
`remaining persons injured in incidents involving the radiator cap (less than one-half percent) were
`poisoned due to having accidentally ingested radiator antifreeze.
`In incidents involving the
`radiator reservoir nearly 94 percent sustained scalding burn injuries, 4 percent received chemical
`or thermal burns, while more than 2 percent sustained other injury. For those injured while
`removing or replacing a radiator hose, or by hose breakage in some manner, the distribution of
`injuries is generally similar to that of the reservoir cases.
`
`7
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 11
`
`
`
`The face, including eye area and nose, was the most severely injured body region for
`nearly 38 percent of the persons injured involving radiator caps [Table 8]. The lower arm was
`injured for about 26 percent of those injured and the upper trunk in 18 percent. For those injured
`involving the radiator reservoir, the face and lower arm were almost equally likely to be the body
`regions most affected, 38 percent and 39 percent respectively, for each. A sizeable portion, 15
`percent, sustained overall injury to 25 percent or more of the body. For persons injured in
`incidents involving the radiator hose, the face was the most severely injured body region for about
`34 percent of the cases. Fewer than 2 percent of all radiator hose injured persons sustained
`overall injury to 25 percent or more of the body.
`
`Approximately 88 percent of the persons injured in incidents involving radiator caps
`received injuries of moderate severity, primarily fust and/or second degree burns that, in general,
`did not require hospitalization (see Table 10). Nearly 10 percent of these persons injured were
`seriously injured, many of whom were hospitalized. The remaining persons injured involving
`radiator caps, approximately 3 percent, received minor injuries. For incidents involving radiator
`reservoirs, about 75 percent received injuries of moderate severity while almost 22 percent were
`seriously injured [Table 9].
`
`Approximately 93 percent of the persons injured in incidents involving radiator caps were
`treated and released without hospitalization;
`the remaining 7 percent were hospitalized due to
`more serious injuries [Table 10]. For those injured by the radiator reservoir, all 1,403 persons
`estimated to have been injured in this reamer were treated and released. For persons injured
`involving radiator hoses, 97 percent were treated and released.
`In general, hospitalized cases
`involved second and third degree burns requiring special and immediate treatment. These data,
`however, may be misleading. A sizeable number of persons injured, some with only moderate
`injuries, though treated at hospital emergency facilities and released because they did not require
`hospitalization, had second and third degree burns that could be expected to require further
`medical treatrnen~ either at a hospital or with a private physician
`
`Persons injured who required hospitalization tended to be those with the more serious
`injuries, i.e., for persons injured involving radiator caps, approximately 64 percent (929/1,456) of
`the seriously injured were hospitalized, compared with only slightly more than 1percent
`(184/13,266) of the moderately injured and none of those persons with minor injuries. For
`persons injured involving radiator reservoirs, none were hospitalized [Table 11]. For persons
`injured involving radiator hoses, 67 percent (70/105) of the seriously injured were hospitalized,
`while none of those with moderate or minor injuries were hospitalized.
`
`For persons injured in incidents involving radiator caps, about 44 percent occurred during
`the summer months of June, July and August [Table 12]. Approximately 25!%were injured in
`incidents involving radiator caps in winter, while roughly similar proportions of persons were
`injured in the fall and spring. For persons injured involving radiator reservoirs, the majority, 62
`percent, occurred during the summer. Nearly three-quarters of the persons injured involving
`radiator hoses occurred during the spring and summer.
`
`8
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 12
`
`
`
`Table 2
`Estimates of Persons Injured by Motor Vehicle Radiators
`By Type of Radiator Involvement and Body Type of Motor Vehicle
`October 1993- September 1994*
`
`1[
`
`2&%_l‘Uto Va:od‘T::r‘rv~:‘“M
`
`Radiator Cap
`
`13,711
`
`373
`
`955
`
`79
`
`15.118
`
`**
`
`I
`79 I
`
`01
`I
`01
`
`I
`
`01
`,
`
`o
`
`0
`
`116
`
`5%
`
`34
`
`0
`
`0
`
`100%
`
`11,024
`
`3,764
`
`266
`
`64
`
`1,403
`
`100%
`
`2.370
`
`100%
`
`188
`
`243
`
`316
`
`6% I
`I
`748 I
`
`60 I
`I
`1471
`I
`
`01
`I
`
`‘o
`
`0
`
`75
`
`3%
`
`7
`
`14
`
`0
`
`2% 1
`I
`
`373
`
`0 0 0 0
`
`o
`
`524
`
`22%
`
`6
`
`12
`
`0
`
`91% I
`i
`
`9,824
`
`3,704
`
`119
`
`64
`
`1,403
`
`100%
`
`1,655
`
`70%
`
`141
`
`217
`
`316
`
`I
`
`I
`
`I
`I
`I
`
`I
`
`%
`
`Removal
`
`Ejection(1)
`
`Closure
`
`Other(2)
`
`Radiator Reservoir
`
`%
`
`Radiator Hose ~
`
`%
`
`Other Radiator (3)
`
`Unspecified Radiator (4)
`
`Other Cooling System
`(5)
`
`Total
`
`17,443
`
`915
`
`1,051
`
`229
`
`19,638
`
`%
`
`5%
`89%
`(1) Exploded popped off, dislodged by vehicle motion, etc. without being touched.
`(2) Cap on radiator, but loose, not tightened or bad fit.
`(3) Fan, fan bel~ grill, fumes from overheating, radiator fluid got into eyes, unintentional ingestion of radiator fluid, etc.
`(4) Cut by/fell ou etc. or injury indirectly due to radiator.
`(5) Heater, heater hose, water pump, thermostat, etc.
`* Percentages may not add to 10(YZOdue to rounding.
`** Less than 1Yo.
`
`5%
`
`1%
`
`100%
`
`9
`
`UUSI Exhibit 2003
`Page 13
`
`
`
`Table 3
`Estimates of Persons Injured by Motor Vehicle Radiators
`By Type of Radiator Involvement and Model Year of Involved Vehicle
`October 1993- September 1994*
`
`Type of Radiator
`Involvement
`
`3
`Radiator Cap
`
`%
`
`Removal
`
`Ejection(1)
`
`Closure
`
`Other (2)
`
`Radiator Reservoir
`
`Pre
`1975
`
`1,228
`
`8%
`
`1,168
`
`60
`
`o
`
`o
`
`Vehicle Model Year
`
`1975-1979
`
`1980-1984
`
`1985-1989
`
`1990-1994
`
`Total
`
`3,893
`
`26%
`
`3,311
`
`582
`
`0
`
`0
`
`279
`
`5,143
`
`34%
`
`3,325
`
`1,607
`
`147
`
`64
`
`377
`
`4,728
`
`31%
`
`3,094
`
`1,515
`
`119
`
`0
`
`689
`
`126
`
`1%
`
`126
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`59
`
`15,118
`
`100%
`
`11,024
`
`3,764
`
`266
`
`64
`
`1,403
`
`%
`
`Radiator Hose
`
`%
`
`Other Radiator(3)
`
`Unspeci.tied
`Radiator(4)
`
`Other Cooling System
`(5)
`
`o
`
`o
`
`229
`
`10%
`
`o
`
`o
`
`o
`
`20%
`
`618
`
`26%
`
`39
`
`61
`
`0
`
`27%
`
`525
`
`22%
`
`58
`
`91
`
`316
`
`49%
`
`979
`
`41%
`
`91
`
`91
`
`0
`
`4%
`
`19
`
`1%
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`100%
`
`2,370
`
`100%
`
`188
`
`243
`
`316
`
`Total
`
`1,457
`
`4,890
`
`6,510
`
`6,578
`
`203
`
`19,638
`
`%
`
`25%
`
`34%
`
`33%
`7%
`(1) Exploded, popped off, dislodged by vehicle motion, etc. without being touched.
`(2) Cap on radiator, but loose, not tightened or bad fit.
`(3) Faq fan bel~ grill, fumes fr