AASP-NJ video highlights how safety inspections can expose previous improper repairs

A New Jersey shop didn’t expect to find anything alarming when completing a supplemental restraint system (SRS) safety inspection during a light rear repair of a Honda CR-V. 

However, as technicians were doing the inspections, they found a previous repairer had cut the air bag harnesses and wired in resistors to trick the computer into thinking the air bag system was functioning properly. 

A quick tip video posted by Alliance of Automotive Service Providers – New Jersey (AASP-NJ) President Ken Miller said the example illustrates how important it is for shops to conduct the inspections. 

Miller told Repairer Driven News that safety inspections are often overlooked for a number of reasons. 

“They are super important for our clients but also for our shops,” Miller said. “There is a fair amount of liability that we assume when we work on these cars.” 

A Honda SRS precautions and procedures document states that after every collision, regardless of air bag deployment or seatbelt tensioner deployment, repairers are to check the deployed history and for any damage or deformation on the SRS unit, impact sensors, and impact pressure sensors. 

Miller said the Honda CR-V was brought to his shop, 821 Collision, after being rear-ended. The vehicle was previously in a collision about a year prior. At the time of the previous collision, the vehicle was brought to a shop recommended by somebody the vehicle’s owner knew. 

For this vehicle, Honda required inspection of the impact sensors in the B and C pillar areas, Miller said. 

“When our technicians took off those inner panels, they noted that the SRS wiring didn’t look quite right, so they started to look deeper, and that’s when they discovered those resistors wired into them,” Miller said. “The car was done. We had finished it. We did not anticipate any issues because the damage in the back was relatively minor. We weren’t anticipating any distortion or anything like that of the sensors that exist in the B and C pillars, but we still do it anyway so we can document and photograph that area.” 

The customer should have been able to pick up their vehicle at that point, but now would be delayed because of what was discovered, Miller said. 

Miller said the customer was “amazed and not in a good way” when told about the issue. 

“He was very thankful that we did do what we are supposed to do and uncovered it because he said, ‘I drive my family in this car,’” Miller said. 

Miller said the seatbelt tensioners keep passengers in the seat, and it changes how that person hits the air bag, if the air bag deploys. He said all four of the outer seatbelts had been disabled with the resistors wired into them. 

“It is a big deal,” Miller said. “They were tricking the SRS computers to think that all of those components were hooked up and functioning properly.” 

In the video, Miller says these are things that should never be done by professionals who are supposed to be licensed and repairing vehicles for unsuspecting people. 

“Please make sure that these inspections get performed and you keep your customers safe on the road,” Miller said. 

Earlier this year, during a Montana Senate hearing, State Farm representative Greg Van Horssen said that the company supports specific technical procedures but not position statements, general checklists, or safety inspection checklists because they are general. 

“They are in the manufacturer’s book,” Van Horssen said. “These are not repair procedures. They are suggestions.” 

The Society of Collision Repair Specialists (SCRS) discussed how safety inspections are a part of OEM procedures during a 2019 open board meeting. 

Ron Reichen, Precision Body and Paint owner, referenced three examples of litigation stemming from the failure of a shop to perform safety inspections during the meeting. 

A former collision repair business owner, Aaron Clark shared an account of being sued after failure to do a safety check at SEMA in 2018.

That vehicle also came into his business to fix a “very minor accident” and the repaired car became involved in a subsequent collision a few weeks later. The airbags failed to deploy in that 80 mph crash, and the impact killed a family pet and rendered two occupants paraplegic.

All of the other defendants were able to avoid the lawsuit — including the vehicle manufacturer, who proved it had made repair procedures available. The shop was left on the hook, exposed for failing to follow OEM repair procedures. The OEM’s instruction would have required 15.5 hours of labor to remove items like the dash, console and steering column to check every one of the relevant modules, sensors and wiring connections.

“I did not perform any of those operations,” Clark said.

For context, he cited the language in Toyota CRIB No. 123 as an example of OEM repair procedures similar to that in the case:

“Even in cases of a minor collision where the SRS does not deploy, the steering wheel pad, front passenger airbag assembly, side airbag assembly, airbag sensor assembly, and side airbag sensor assembly should be inspected and diagnostic tests should be performed,” Toyota states. “Always refer to the Toyota service repair manual for the correct diagnostic and repair procedures.

Clark said expert witness and testimony indicated the shop did everything right, but “however, we didn’t check these other things.”

“It was a devastating thing to go through,” he said.

Images

Feature image: Screenshot of AASP-NJ quick tip video.