Documents reveal GM kept silent on fatal vehicle crashes

Written by New York Times | Updated: Jul 17 2014, 20:36pm hrs
General MotorsA GM engineer had concluded in an internal evaluation that the Saturn Ion had most likely lost power, disabling its air bags.
The car crash that killed Gene Erickson caught the attention of federal regulators. Why did the Saturn Ion he was travelling in, along a rural Texas road, suddenly swerve into a tree Why did the air bags fail General Motors told federal authorities that it could not provide answers.

But only a month earlier, a GM engineer had concluded in an internal evaluation that the Ion had most likely lost power, disabling its air bags, according to a subsequent internal investigation commissioned by GM.

Now, GMs response, as well as its replies to queries in other crashes obtained by The New York Times from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, casts doubt on how forthright the automaker was with regulators over a defective ignition switch that GM has linked to at least 13 deaths over the last decade.

They provide details for the first time on the issue at the heart of a criminal investigation by the Justice Department: Whether GM, in its interaction with safety regulators, obscured a deadly defect that would also injure perhaps hundreds of people.

The company repeatedly found a way not to answer the simple question from regulators of what led to a crash. In at least three cases of fatal crashes, including the accident that killed Erickson, GM said that it had not assessed the cause. In another fatal crash, GM said that attorney-client privilege may have prevented it from answering. And in other cases, the automaker was more blunt, writing, GM opts not to respond.

The responses came even though GM had for years been aware of sudden power loss in the models involved in the accidents. The responses are found in documents known as death inquiries, which The Times obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. In those inquiries, regulators ask automakers to explain the circumstances surrounding a crash to help identify potential defects in cars.

On Thursday, the head of GMs legal department, Michael Millikin, is expected to face intense scrutiny before lawmakers at a Senate hearing. He is scheduled to testify along with, among others, Mary Barra, the chief executive, who faced a harsh grilling before the same panel in April.

The Times asked the safety agency for death inquiries related to fatal crashes in older Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions, which are among the 2.6 million cars with defective ignition switches that GM has recalled since February. Of the 13 deaths linked to the defect, all of which involved Cobalts and Ions, The Times received inquiries for four of them.

Erickson was riding in the front seat of a Saturn Ion driven by Candice Anderson in 2004. They were an hour from Dallas when the car suddenly drove into a tree, killing Erickson but sparing Anderson. Only recently did Anderson, who pleaded guilty to criminally negligent homicide after the accident because she had a trace of Xanax in her system, learn that she was not to blame.

Despite the earlier determination by the engineer, Manuel Peace, that the engines shutting off had most likely been the reason for the crash, GM, in its response to regulators, said there may not have been sufficient reliable information to accurately assess the cause of the incident.

GM, which also faced a lawsuit from Ericksons family at the time, further stated that attorney-client privilege may have been a reason it could not make disclosures.

Ultimately, GM said it had not assessed the cause of the accident. It seems inconsistent, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, who specialises in product liability. It seems like the company knew that the accident was attributable to power loss. It does sound like they didnt give NHTSA everything they should have. That could make them vulnerable to the Justice Departments investigation.

When asked about GM's responses to the governments death inquiries, James Cain, a spokesman, said on Tuesday: We are confronting our problems openly and directly. We are taking responsibility for what has happened and making significant changes across our company to make sure that it never happens again.

In a later death inquiry, GM chose not to say whether it had looked into the circumstances of the December 2009 crash in Tennessee that killed Seyde Chansuthus, who is also counted among the 13 victims. GM added in its response that any privileged material related to the case would not be shared. The company had not been sued by Chansuthuss family at the time.

But there had already been a thorough review of Chansuthuss accident within GM

Six days before that letter to regulators, lawyers representing GM had presented an evaluation of the crash to the automaker, according to the internal investigation conducted by GM this year. The lawyers warned that GM could be liable for punitive damages because air bags in Cobalts were known not to deploy in some cases.

In a third fatal crash, involving the deaths of Amy Rademaker and Natasha Weigel, teenage friends killed in Wisconsin in 2006, GM again responded that it could not provide an answer to what caused the accident, using the same language as in its reply to questions about Ericksons crash.

In this case, GM had received outside evidence that there was a problem with the switch, including a state troopers collision report from February 2007 that made the critical link between the faulty ignition switch and the air bags failing to deploy. GMs internal investigation said that only one person inside GM had even opened the report, though it was included in the reply to regulators, who also failed to follow through. One of the requirements on the death inquiry is to provide a copy of the police report.