fl
`us. Department
`ofTransportation
`National Highway
`Traffic Safety
`Administration
`
`s
`
`)
`
`N "IE
`
`‘t
`6
`
`NEWc
`0‘“‘
`* 0,;;
`? w
`‘ if,“
`(V EAfiRS
`MG in 9
`
`
`
`DOT H5 808 598
`
`July 1997
`
`Technical Report
`
`Injuries Associated with Specific Motor
`Vehicle Hazards: Radiators, Batteries,
`Power Windows, and Power Roofs
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`
`WEBASTO ROOF SYSTEMS, INC.
`Petitioner
`v.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`Patent Owner
`
`Case:
`|PR2014-00650
`
`Patent: 7,579,802
`
`1/52
`
`
`
`This document is available to the public from the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161,
`
`

`

`This publication is distributed by the US. Department of
`Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety
`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, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`2/52
`2/52
`
`

`

`2. Govemmont Accession No.
`
`Technical Report Documentation Page
`3. Recipient's Catatog No.
`
`1. Report No,
`
`DOT HS 808 598
`4. Title and Subtitle
`
`
`
`Injuries Associated with Specific Motor Vehicle Hazards: Radiators.
`
`Batteries, Power Windows, and Power Roofs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7. Author(s)
`
`Richardson, Henri A.
`9. Performing Organization Name and Address
`
`
`
`
`
`15 Supplementary Notes
`
`16, Abstract
`
`5. Report Date
`
`July 1997
`
`6. Periorrning Organization Code
`
`N R 0-3 1
`8. Performing Organization Report No
`
`10. Work Un'n No, (TRAIS)
`
`13, Type of Report and Period Covered
`
`NHTSA Technical Report
`
`14-. Sponsoring Agency Code
`\
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Name and Address
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__--
`
`Reproduction of completed page authorized
`
`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 roots. 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 root) 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 root itself. The report provides breakdowns oi the injury estimates for radiators.
`
`batteries, and power windows byactivity producing the injury, injury diagnosis and severity, injured body region, and
`
`age/sex of the injured.
`
`motor vehicle hazards, non-crash related, injury diagnosis,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This document is available to the public through the
`
`
`
`13 Security Classit. (of this report)
`
`
`
`
`~
`
`20. Security Classii. (of this page)
`
`21. No. of Pages
`
`22‘ Price
`
`Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72)
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`3/52
`3/52
`
`

`

`Page
`
`Introduction .............................................................. 1
`Data Collection .............................- ............................... 2
`Possible Limitations of NEISS Data ........................................... 4
`
`Findings ................................................................. 4
`
`' r'
`
`i
`
`'
`
`'
`
`I
`
`'
`
`............................... 5
`
`Body Type of Involved Motor Vehicle ........................................ 8
`Vehicle Model Year .............................. _ ........................ 9
`Vehicle Manufacturer .................................................... 10
`
`Age ................................................................. 1 1
`Gender .......... '. .
`.- ........a .......................................... 12
`Injury Diagnosis .....................................................'. .
`. 13
`Most Injured Body Part .................................................. 14
`Injury Severity ......................................................... 16
`Medical Disposition ..................................................... 17
`Injury Severity and Medical Disposition ........ j.............................. 18
`Season ............................................................... 19
`
`In'
`i A
`i
`i
`r
`hi I
`r
`'
`....................... 21
`Injury Producing Action .................................................. 22
`Injury Diagnosis ........................................................ 22
`Most Injured Body Region .
`.
`_.............................................. 23
`Injury Severity ......................................................... 24
`
`'
`
`'
`i
`i h
`r
`hi I P w r
`‘
`.......................... 25
`Injury Producing Action .................................................. 26
`Injury Diagnosis
`....................................................... 26
`Most Injured Body Region ................................................ 27
`Injury Severity ......................................................... 27
`Age ................................................................. 28
`
`' ri
`
`'
`
`i h
`
`V '
`
`l
`
`r R f ............................. 29
`
`References ............................................................... 30
`
`i i i
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhlblt 201 0
`4/52
`4/52
`
`

`

`,
`
`.
`
`ll
`
`‘
`A: “I: National Electronic Injury Suryeillange System
`Overview .......................................................... A—l
`
`The NEISS Hospital Sample ............................................ A—3
`Limitations of NEISS Data ............................................. A-4
`
`B:W
`Descriptions of 7 Variables Collected for All Sample Cases .................... B-l
`
`C:W
`General Quesfions .................................................... C-l
`Radiators .......................................................... 02
`
`Battery Explosions ................................................... C-4
`Power-Operated Windows ............................................. C—8
`Power-Operated Roofs ................................................ C—9
`
`iv
`
`UUSI, LLC
`U l_JS_|, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhlblt 201 0
`5/52
`5/52
`
`

`

`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 US. 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.
`
`l.
`
`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 US, 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.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`6/52
`6/52
`
`

`

`To support the contention that radiator cap scalding incidents are increasing and that over
`100,000 such incidents occur annually in the US, 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
`US. 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, NY. 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 US. Consumer
`Product Safety Cormnission (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 US. 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
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`7/52
`7/52
`
`

`

`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 sample of 91 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 of 591 NEISS cases collected during the subject twelve
`month period. For 148 of the 591 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.
`
`Interview Completion Status for NEISS Cases in
`NHTSA Motor Vehicle Hazard Study
`October 1993 - Se . tember 1994
`
`
`Table 1
`
`Product
`
`Not Com leted
`
` Attempted and
`
`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, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`8/52
`8/52
`
`

`

`Possible Limitations of NEISS Data
`
`This study provides national estimates of the number of persons injured each year as a
`result of hazards associated with four (4) specific 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 care 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 category of fully identifiable,
`relevant cases excluded altogether from the NEISS sample. Additional and more complete details
`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 may be 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 findings for injuries associated with motor vehicle power roofs is
`presented at the end of the report.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`9/52
`9/52
`
`

`

`n'ri
`
`i
`
`ih
`
`il
`
`i
`
`During the 12-month study period October 1, 1993 through September 30, 1994, an
`estimated 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: burn 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);
`burn or non-burn 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 severity 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 nearly 91 percent of the radiator cap injuries; pickups in
`approximately 7 percent; 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, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`10/52
`10/52
`
`

`

`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 percent; Chrysler - 17 percent; Ford - 12 percent; Other
`Domestic and Foreign- 3 and 6 percent, respectively. The radiator reservoir injuries differed
`somewhatin that 46 percent of the vehicles involved were manufactured by General Motors, and
`foreign vehicles were involvedin 34 percent of theinjuries [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. Almost 91 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, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`11/52
`11/52
`
`

`

`.
`
`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 first 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, approximawa 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 manner 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 treatment, 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 1 percent
`(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.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`12/52
`12/52
`
`

`

`Table 2
`
`Estimates of Persons Injured by Motor Vehicle Radiators
`By Type of Radiator Involvement and Body Type of Motor Vehicle
`October 1993 - Se o tember 1994*
`
`Type of Radiator
`Involvement
`
`
`
`Body Type of Motor Vehicle
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mm
`
`
`---_-m
`mm
`
`
`m".
`
`
`__”-I-I
`
`100%
`
`
`OtherRadiator <3> ----
`Unspecified Radiator <4)mm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2,370
`
`
`
`
`
`(5)
`
`1’65
`
`(l) 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 belt, grill, fumes from overheating, radiator fluid got into eyes, unintentional ingestion of radiator fluid, etc.
`(4) Cut by/fell on, etc. or injury indirectly due to radiator.
`(5) Heater, heater hose, water pump, thermostat, etc.
`* Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
`** Less than 1%.
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`13/52
`13/52
`
`

`

`Table 3
`
`Estimates of Persons Injured by Motor Vehicle Radiators
`By Type of Radiator Involvement and Model Year of Involved Vehicle
`
`October 1993 - Se - tember 1994*
`
`
`Vehicle Model Year
`
`1975-1979
`1980-1984
`1985-1989
`1990—1994
`
`Type of Radiator
`Involvement
`
`1975
`
`L168
`
`3311
`
`3,325
`
`37094-11924
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`229
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-u
`
`
`
`
`6578
`
`
`
`203
`
`1 %
`
`( l) 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 belt, grill, fumes from overheating, radiator fluid got into eyes, unintentional ingestion of radiator fluid, etc.
`(4) Cut by/fell on, etc. or injury indirectly due to radiator.
`(5) Heater, heater hose, water pump, thermostat, etc.
`* Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
`
`lO
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`14/52
`14/52
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Estimates of Persons Injured by Motor Vehicle Radiators
`By Type of Radiator Involvement and Vehicle Manufacturer
`October 1993 - Se ntember 1994*
`
`Table 4
`
`Vehicle Manufacturer
`
`Involvement
`
`Motors
`
`Domestic
`
`Forei-
`
`mm-
`
` Type of Radiator
`
`1,859 __T 15118
`2,609
`9419
`Radiator Cap
`
`
`_-_--- 100%
`
`—---—-—
`
`——mm
`—-u—
`
`
`_---l
`_-__2
`
`:—-—-
`
`
`
`
`
`order Radiator <i>
`
`Unspecified Radiator <4)
`
`
`
`(5)
`
`
`
`rod
`
`
`(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 belt, grill, fumes from overheating, radiator fluid got into eyes, unintentional ingestion of radiator fluid, etc.
`(4) Cut by/fell on, etc. or injury indirectly due to radiator.
`(5) Heater, heater hose, water pump, thermostat, etc.
`* Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
`
`ll
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`15/52
`15/52
`
`

`

`Table 5
`
`Estimates of Persons Injured by Motor Vehicle Radiators
`By Type of Radiator Involvement and Age
`October 1993 - Se - tember 1994*
`
`A--e of Person
`
`---
`_--
`
`
`
`Radiator
`
`R_eservoir
`
`Radiator
`Hose
`
`Radiator (3)
`
`Unspecified
`Radiator (4)
`
`(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 belt, grill, fumes from overheating, radiator fluid got into eyes, unintentional ingestion of radiator fluid, etc.
`(4)Cut by/feli on, etc. or injury indirectly due to radiator.
`(5)Heater, heater hose, water pump, thermostat, etc.
`* Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.
`
`12
`
`UUSI, LLC
`UUSI, LLC
`Exhibit 2010
`Exhibit 2010
`16/52
`16/52
`
`

`

`Estimates of Persons Injured by Motor Vehicle Radiators
`By Type of Radiator Involvement and Gender
`October 1993 - Se utember 1994
`
`
`Radiator
`
`
`
`Involvement
`
`
`
`Radiator Cap
`
`
`
`
`Table 6
`
`13,074
`
`tal
`
`15,118
`
`100%
`
`9,153
`
`1,871
`
`11,024
`
`
`
`(7
`
`__
`
`Removal
`
`-——266
`
`
`_—-
`
`—,-m
`---
`
`—_-l
`
`
`
`
`
`_———
`
`
`
`other Raw (2» —-—
`Unspecified Radiator <4) ——-
`omerCoolmg Systems --_
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1)Exploded, popped off, dislodged by vehicle motion, etc. without being touched
`(2) Cap on radiator but loose,