Opinion ID: 3045899
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History of Back-Over Protection

Text: on Riding Mowers In the 1970's and 80's, a series of studies warned about the extreme dangers associated with operating riding mowers in reverse with blades engaged. These studies were conducted by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (“CPSC”)3 and others. The studies cited back-over blade contact accidents, comprising between nine and eleven percent of reported accidents involving riding mowers, as the most tragic type of lawnmower accidents. These accidents Expert Report); see also App. at 576 (Simplicity inter-office correspondence regarding NMIR standard). Roller barriers provide an alternative method for back-over protection. They are described more fully below. 3 The CPSC is the government agency charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from various types of consumer products. 7 almost always involved children under the age of five, and almost always resulted in amputation or death. Calculations based on these studies demonstrated that back-over accidents happened at a rate of more than 100 per year, and one such accident occurred for each 5-6,000 riding mowers sold in the United States. App. 550, 555. In December of 1974, a study commissioned by the CPSC recommended that all riding mowers be equipped with a mechanism that would automatically stop the blade while the mower was in neutral or reverse. The Consumers’ Union of the United States (“CU”) echoed the call for this requirement in a proposed standard issued on July 17, 1975.4 In 1977, the CPSC published a “Proposed Safety Standard” in the Federal Register that would have required all riding mowers to include back-over protection in the form of a device that would disengage the blades while the mower was in reverse. In 1984, following requests from the industry trade association, certain sections of the proposed mandatory CPSC requirements were withdrawn. The withdrawn sections included the requirement that an NMIR device be incorporated into the design of riding mowers. The withdrawal was premised on the CPSC’s belief that a voluntary standard developed by the industry with comment and assistance by the CPSC would be “a more efficient use of the commission’s resources.” App. 575. 4 The Consumer’s Union is a nonprofit consumer research organization that is probably best known for its publication of “Consumer Reports Magazine.” 8 Nonetheless, the CPSC continued to recognize that “based on engineering judgment, riding mowers meeting these requirements [including reverse operations with the blade disengaged] should be safer than those that do not.” App. 576. Accordingly, the CPSC sent a letter to the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute (“OPEI”) requesting that an NMIR feature with an option for manual override be included in any revised American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) standard for riding mowers. 5 The Commission’s rationale included the following statement: These provisions offer a reasonable means to begin to address young children backed over during reverse mowing. While these accidents are infrequent, the population at risk and the severe mental trauma to the child’s family fully support the need to take immediate steps . . . . Overall, the requirement can address the serious back up hazard while still permitting maximum freedom to designers. App. 548-49. In 1994, the CPSC further articulated industry concerns regarding the efficacy of NMIR devices, including issues relating to how fast the blade should stop to avoid blade contact injuries, whether consumers would accept a mower that does not mow while backing up, and whether the 5 The OPEI is the industry trade group that drafted the ANSI safety specifications for riding mowers. App. 209. 9 safety change could be incorporated into the product without diminishing customer satisfaction. Those and similar concerns ultimately lead to the defeat of attempts to incorporate a mandatory NMIR design into riding mowers.