Liability of towing over your TV's capability

[85MH325]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Also, there are folks saying that "they have never seen" a possible overweight condition being checked after an accident and others who have either been involved in such a situation and seen it happen personally or consulted with someone else who has. The problem is that not seeing something isn't especially relevant; one can't prove a negative.

There exists a contingent of folks who see the world in black and white with no shades of gray. For example, if I were to ask the question "what constitutes overloading to the point of negligence," I suspect that the answers would start with "one pound over."

We are, however, often into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory in many of these discussions. What about a hundred-pound overload of the GCVWR, but there was ice on the road? Is that negligent over-loading, or would the ice be the greater cause? How about the rear axle being overloaded per manufacturer's specs, but one of the front suspension components failed? How about tire condition and the drag coefficient of the roadway? How about how load shifts on the tires and axles during accelleration and decelleration, and how the forward shift of weight to the front axle on decelleration increases the coefficient of drag of the tires during braking?

THEN we get into how, exactly, do the manufacturers determine what the "safe" loading is? Where do those numbers come from, exactly, and how are they applied? What factors cause them to change from model year to model year on the same make, model and size of truck? I would absolutely love to sit through a lecture from an automotive engineer from one of the automotive companies explaining how they arrive at their "tow ratings," GCVWR, individual axle ratings, and hitch ratings; both frame and fifth wheel. Are they assessed through repeated destructive testing, or merely an engineer's "best guess" based on the metallurgy, metal thickness and other engineering factors? And either way, is there a "fudge factor" built into the recommendations? Can you go 20% higher without expecting a failure? If so, for how long and under what conditions? And if all THAT is true, wouldn't the ACTUAL rating be at that 20% higher load value?

You can see that these isssues can get pretty complex.

And then there's the aerodnamics of the trailer and how THAT affects component loading while at speed.

There are a LOT of moving parts to the physics here that aren't being taken into account in these discussions. The math and science are complex. For the sake of simplicity and avoiding problems IF you crash, it'd be MY recommendation you just stay inside the manufacturer's ratings. More importantly, though, MOST crashes involving RVs are directly related to driver error; typically speed unsafe for conditions, or failure to stop in an assured distance being the two most common primary causes of collisions involving RVs.

We know that ALL trailers exhibit sway at speed, and the best we can do is control the speed at which onset occurs and drive slower than that. BUT...
since "speed unsafe for conditions" is a LOT more likely to cause you to crash than overloading, where is the discussion and angst about the liability of exceeding the 65mph rated limit of your ST rated trailer tires and crashing?

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

It is interesting how different people interpret the same information differently .

I see the thread title referring to capability of a tow vehicle.

You interpret that as referring to published manufacturers guidance on a standard test.

I don’t ever want to exceed the capabilities of the tow vehicle. One way to not exceed that capability is to slow down, for example. Driving beyond a state at which the operator has full control creates liability. It doesn’t much matter to me what a sticker says, unless it refers to a legally regulated aspect (like tire and axle weight ratings.)

Except for the manufacturer's guidance on tire pressures as well as their stated limits for axle ratings, payload, etc. of their product, is there an objective written standard that would be acceptable in a legal proceeding to establish "capability" for a given TV? Besides, of course, "I've towed thousands of miles and never had a problem doing it this way before", or "I was going slow".

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Except for the manufacturer's guidance on tire pressures as well as their stated limits for axle ratings, payload, etc. of their product, is there an objective written standard that would be acceptable in a legal proceeding to establish "capability" for a given TV? Besides, of course, "I've towed thousands of miles and never had a problem doing it this way before", or "I was going slow".

I would add tire pressures from the label to my list of things I follow (even if not strictly). And I would strike payload from the list, since it can be inaccurate. Payload as determined by taking the design weight less the curb weight means more, but that is not necessarily the same as the number on the label.

There are objective standards and regulations for tire and axle ratings.

There is no objective written standard to establish a tow rating. That is the crux of the problem. There is no reference in law to the SAE test procedure, an optional test standard which was devised simply to allow consumers to compare one vehicle to another. And no reference to the TUV procedure.

Case in point: A manufacturer's tow rating can often be increased by purchasing the "tow package". When this package contains a transmission cooler and not much else, how does the proponent of tow ratings being absolute limits for safe operation respond? Usually by saying that you might damage your transmission. But how is that anything to do with safety?

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by jcl

...Case in point: A manufacturer's tow rating can often be increased by purchasing the "tow package". When this package contains a transmission cooler and not much else, how does the proponent of tow ratings being absolute limits for safe operation respond? Usually by saying that you might damage your transmission. But how is that anything to do with safety?

Specifically to your example, many vehicle use the transmission as part of the "engine braking" system. An overheated and malfunctioning transmission may or may not be able to provide the necessary reduction in speed to safely descend a mountain pass.

More broadly, you and I have no idea how many inter-related systems there are on a vehicle. Things like steering stability, braking, suspension, etc. are all very much safety issues which can contribute to an accident or unsafe towing situation.

I get it that you hold that axle and tire ratings are the important things - you've made that clear in many other threads. I don't understand how you can accept those numbers as being accurate, but can't also accept that there are other components of a tow vehicle which have safety limits and capacities as represented on the manufacturer's sticker.

The saying "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" works in reverse as well... The limit of one part can lower the limit of the whole.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by richard5933

Specifically to your example, many vehicle use the transmission as part of the "engine braking" system. An overheated and malfunctioning transmission may or may not be able to provide the necessary reduction in speed to safely descend a mountain pass.

More broadly, you and I have no idea how many inter-related systems there are on a vehicle. Things like steering stability, braking, suspension, etc. are all very much safety issues which can contribute to an accident or unsafe towing situation.

I get it that you hold that axle and tire ratings are the important things - you've made that clear in many other threads. I don't understand how you can accept those numbers as being accurate, but can't also accept that there are other components of a tow vehicle which have safety limits and capacities as represented on the manufacturer's sticker.

The saying "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" works in reverse as well... The limit of one part can lower the limit of the whole.

Show me the regulations that govern how much retarding force must be provided by a transmission. Spoiler alert: you may be looking for a long time.

Tire and axle ratings matter because the limits are legally defined. The limits apply to light duty vehicles as are used to tow Airstreams. They are objective. That gets to the crux of whether exceeding them creates liability.

Sure, all the vehicle systems are inter related. But the discussion is on legal liability, not on how things work.

If an operator loses control and crashes, they are liable. They may be more likely to crash at a higher speed, or with a higher load on the vehicle, or whatever. But they are still the one responsible. If they came in under the payload label, but couldn't stop in time, they don't get to claim it isn't their fault because they weren't overloaded. They were not driving for the conditions, most likely.

This over reliance on labels is dangerous. Some people seem to consider that it gives them a pass on the issue of personal responsibility.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

I would add tire pressures from the label to my list of things I follow (even if not strictly). And I would strike payload from the list, since it can be inaccurate. Payload as determined by taking the design weight less the curb weight means more, but that is not necessarily the same as the number on the label.

There are objective standards and regulations for tire and axle ratings.

There is no objective written standard to establish a tow rating. That is the crux of the problem. There is no reference in law to the SAE test procedure, an optional test standard which was devised simply to allow consumers to compare one vehicle to another. And no reference to the TUV procedure.

Case in point: A manufacturer's tow rating can often be increased by purchasing the "tow package". When this package contains a transmission cooler and not much else, how does the proponent of tow ratings being absolute limits for safe operation respond? Usually by saying that you might damage your transmission. But how is that anything to do with safety?

I think it's already been discussed that it would be difficult to establish criminality with respect to certain towing limits although I believe one can be ticketed if an officer checks the GVWR of your TT and it exceeds the rating posted on your vehicle's data plate. That said, establishing that the owner of a tow vehicle who knowingly exceeded the manufacturer's recommendations for towing was negligent might be easier in a civil proceeding to award damages or with respect to an insurance claim.

Things get into a gray area when asserting that payload numbers "can be" inaccurate, or that marketing speak like "tow packages" may or may not reflect an actual increase in towing capability. That's really not the issue. Neither is the issue about absolute safety, since there is no way to prove that one way or the other short of exhaustive testing and certification which is clearly not being routinely done. Instead, what we have are those published numbers from the TV manufacturer and a lot of opinions, some more educated than others. Staying within those numbers doesn't guarantee safety in the absence of other behavior, but it's a starting point.

Anyway, imagine that you've been involved in a collision with your trailer and the insurance adjuster or, worse, the attorney for a deceased family member in the other vehicle discovers that despite the fact that you were travelling within the posted speed limit in an otherwise safe manner you were 750 pounds over the recommended payload for your TV and towing a trailer that exceeded its published tow capacity. My guess is that he/she would not have too difficult of a time convincing the majority on a civil jury that you were obviously negligent, your protestations about how the manufacturer didn't really mean it when they posted those numbers on the data plate notwithstanding.

Bottom line, you might not be facing jail time under a criminal statute, but you could very possibly be found liable for damages anyway. And wasn't the issue of liability what was posed at the top of this thread?

[2012FB]

Wondering what to do. Buy a 1 ton dually or sell the airstream? I am leaning toward selling the Airstream I just don’t think I can handle the responsibility or fear. To think I was enjoying my Airstream before this post.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

I think it's already been discussed that it would be difficult to establish criminality with respect to certain towing limits although I believe one can be ticketed if an officer checks the GVWR of your TT and it exceeds the rating posted on your vehicle's data plate. That said, establishing that the owner of a tow vehicle who knowingly exceeded the manufacturer's recommendations for towing was negligent might be easier in a civil proceeding to award damages or with respect to an insurance claim.

Things get into a gray area when asserting that payload numbers "can be" inaccurate, or that marketing speak like "tow packages" may or may not reflect an actual increase in towing capability. That's really not the issue. Neither is the issue about absolute safety, since there is no way to prove that one way or the other short of exhaustive testing and certification which is clearly not being routinely done. Instead, what we have are those published numbers from the TV manufacturer and a lot of opinions, some more educated than others. Staying within those numbers doesn't guarantee safety in the absence of other behavior, but it's a starting point.

Anyway, imagine that you've been involved in a collision with your trailer and the insurance adjuster or, worse, the attorney for a deceased family member in the other vehicle discovers that despite the fact that you were travelling within the posted speed limit in an otherwise safe manner you were 750 pounds over the recommended payload for your TV and towing a trailer that exceeded its published tow capacity. My guess is that he/she would not have too difficult of a time convincing the majority on a civil jury that you were obviously negligent, your protestations about how the manufacturer didn't really mean it when they posted those numbers on the data plate notwithstanding.

Bottom line, you might not be facing jail time under a criminal statute, but you could very possibly be found liable for damages anyway. And wasn't the issue of liability what was posed at the top of this thread?

Interesting on the issue of vehicle tow ratings and tickets. Do you have a reference for that? I can't see it in the California vehicle code. There are tickets for exceeding a GVWR without the appropriate operator license (10,000 lbs rated, not actual, requires an additional license), but I don't see a reference to the vehicle tow rating.

I agree that civil proceedings will be different than criminal.

But use your example of being 750 lbs over the tow rating and being in a crash. You suggest that the factor above can be sufficient to determine negligence. If one is one pound under the rating, how much influence does that have in determining lack of negligence? Do we just write off the crash and the lawsuit as "stuff that just happens, nothing could have been done to avoid it?"

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by jcl

Show me the regulations that govern how much retarding force must be provided by a transmission. Spoiler alert: you may be looking for a long time.



Tire and axle ratings matter because the limits are legally defined. The limits apply to light duty vehicles as are used to tow Airstreams. They are objective. That gets to the crux of whether exceeding them creates liability.



Sure, all the vehicle systems are inter related. But the discussion is on legal liability, not on how things work.



If an operator loses control and crashes, they are liable. They may be more likely to crash at a higher speed, or with a higher load on the vehicle, or whatever. But they are still the one responsible. If they came in under the payload label, but couldn't stop in time, they don't get to claim it isn't their fault because they weren't overloaded. They were not driving for the conditions, most likely.



This over reliance on labels is dangerous. Some people seem to consider that it gives them a pass on the issue of personal responsibility.

It seems that you're focusing on the legal liability and regulations, but this conversation is also talking about civil liability. Civil lawsuits are won every day without anything illegal being done. They're also won every day without any regulations being violated. Settlements like this are even more common. If someone is injured or suffers a loss, a much lower standard of proof is required, usually something like 'preponderance of the evidence' or 'more likely than not'.

You are correct that simply following the label will not absolve someone of responsibility if they are negligent in some other way. But the opposite is also true, that operating at a safe speed and otherwise being safe does not absolve one of responsibility if an accident should occur because their vehicle is overloaded. To me, it's an all-of-the-above type of thing. The crux of towing safely goes way beyond obeying axle and tire limits.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by 2012FB

Wondering what to do. Buy a 1 ton dually or sell the airstream? I am leaning toward selling the Airstream I just don’t think I can handle the responsibility or fear. To think I was enjoying my Airstream before this post.

It's like anything else that involves risk and reward. My 3/4 ton is completely within limits when it comes to towing my 25' TT; I don't need to buy a dually to feel safe. Personally, I'm not afraid to tow my Airstream and I don't dwell on the negative, but the issue of liability was brought up in this thread.

There are factors when towing that are out of our control and others that are within our control. I guess my perspective is, why start from a point where what can be controlled, isn't?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by richard5933

It seems that you're focusing on the legal liability and regulations, but this conversation is also talking about civil liability. Civil lawsuits are won every day without anything illegal being done. They're also won every day without any regulations being violated. Settlements like this are even more common. If someone is injured or suffers a loss, a much lower standard of proof is required, usually something like 'preponderance of the evidence' or 'more likely than not'.

You are correct that simply following the label will not absolve someone of responsibility if they are negligent in some other way. But the opposite is also true, that operating at a safe speed and otherwise being safe does not absolve one of responsibility if an accident should occur because their vehicle is overloaded. To me, it's an all-of-the-above type of thing. The crux of towing safely goes way beyond obeying axle and tire limits.

With respect to the statement in bold, I would just point out that if one is exceeding legal tire and axle limits, it makes any civil case much easier to decide.

Leaving those two things aside, your comment that everything creates liability is, I think, fair. What hasn't been demonstrated is that manufacturer's tow rating guidance carries any particular weight in that discussion. Which takes us back to the OP's question.

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

Interesting on the issue of vehicle tow ratings and tickets. Do you have a reference for that? I can't see it in the California vehicle code. There are tickets for exceeding a GVWR without the appropriate operator license (10,000 lbs rated, not actual, requires an additional license), but I don't see a reference to the vehicle tow rating.

I agree that civil proceedings will be different than criminal.

But use your example of being 750 lbs over the tow rating and being in a crash. You suggest that the factor above can be sufficient to determine negligence. If one is one pound under the rating, how much influence does that have in determining lack of negligence? Do we just write off the crash and the lawsuit as "stuff that just happens, nothing could have been done to avoid it?"

In California, and I believe some other states, registration fees are based on the GVWR of the vehicle, with ratings over 10K pounds charged a greater amount. When I bought my Ford F250, for example, I could have specified a package with a rating of 9900 pounds to avoid the added fees. However, if I towed a trailer over that weight, and was registered for only 9900 I could be deemed in violation and cited if I got stopped. At the time I owned a 30' Classic with a 10,000lb GVWR so I decided not to take the chance. It's a fee issue, not a safety issue but it's not a stretch to imagine that could be used against you in certain circumstances.

Your hypothetical about being one pound over most likely would not resonate with a civil jury, but being 750 over probably would, as would towing a 7500lb GVWR trailer with a vehicle rated for 5000lbs. But again, we're not discussing criminal penalties, we're talking about liability. I think the point is, your argument isn't with what I think is reasonable but rather with what an aggrieved plaintiff or an insurance company who is looking for someone to blame thinks is reasonable. Why give them extra ammunition?

[mikeinca]

Originally Posted by jcl

Leaving those two things aside, your comment that everything creates liability is, I think, fair. What hasn't been demonstrated is that manufacturer's tow rating guidance carries any particular weight in that discussion.

Why wouldn't the manufacturer's tow (or payload) rating be a consideration? What needs to be demonstrated beyond using common sense? If your TV was over its posted limits, and was involved in an accident, do you think the plaintiff's attorney wouldn't try to use that fact to convince the average person on a jury that you were negligent? Do you think that an insurance adjuster might not use it to attempt to deny your claim? Things must be a lot more reasonable up there in Canada!

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Why wouldn't the manufacturer's tow (or payload) rating be a consideration? What needs to be demonstrated beyond using common sense? If the average person on a civil jury was presented with evidence that your TV was over its posted limits, and was involved in an accident, do you think the plaintiff's attorney wouldn't try to use that fact? Do you think that an insurance adjuster might not use it to attempt to deny your claim? Things must be a lot more reasonable up there in Canada!

While it could be a consideration, and might be brought up by a lawyer, it is straightforward to demonstrate that the tow rating in and of itself doesn't determine safety. The lawyer would have a difficult time showing how an arbitrary rating is the determinant IMO. Just ask the lawyer or their witness if the rating was determined with the same type of trailer under discussion. Whether any modifications were done to the tow vehicle. Whether there are any test results for this specific combination.

As to payload, ask the lawyer or their witness how the use of WD impacts it.

Yes, I suspect that things are more reasonable up here.

[85MH325]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

Why wouldn't the manufacturer's tow (or payload) rating be a consideration? What needs to be demonstrated beyond using common sense? If the average person on a civil jury was presented with evidence that your TV was over its posted limits, and was involved in an accident, do you think the plaintiff's attorney wouldn't try to use that fact? Do you think that an insurance adjuster might not use it to attempt to deny your claim? Things must be a lot more reasonable up there in Canada!

To which the counter is: "how did the manufacturer arrive at that number, and what makes it 'safe.'" And "what number then, is UNsafe, and why?"

Yes, the data plate numbers are a good starting place, but once again, the liability (if any) rests with the operator not the machine, suspension, tires, hitch or other equipment.

As a "fer instance," Let's say that the onset of sway occurs in a particular trailer at 80mph. As long as the operator stays at 65mph (the rated speed for ST tires) the trailer and tow vehicle as a unit are "safe," even though heavier than rated capacities. However, once he/she reaches the magic 80mph and a sway episode starts, and a crash occurs was it the fault of the equipment? Was the crash caused by overloading? Or was the crash caused by the driver's speed that were unsafe for the conditions? The driver is at fault in all three scenarios, but it's a pretty safe bet that the citation, any criminal charges and any civil suits will be about the unsafe speed.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by jcl

While it could be a consideration, and might be brought up by a lawyer, it is straightforward to demonstrate that the tow rating in and of itself doesn't determine safety. The lawyer would have a difficult time showing how an arbitrary rating is the determinant IMO. Just ask the lawyer or their witness if the rating was determined with the same type of trailer under discussion. Whether any modifications were done to the tow vehicle. Whether there are any test results for this specific combination.

As to payload, ask the lawyer or their witness how the use of WD impacts it.

Yes, I suspect that things are more reasonable up here.

Not sure who is defining these ratings as arbitrary. The manufacturers seem to think differently.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by mikeinca

In California, and I believe some other states, registration fees are based on the GVWR of the vehicle, with ratings over 10K pounds charged a greater amount. When I bought my Ford F250, for example, I could have specified a package with a rating of 9900 pounds to avoid the added fees. However, if I towed a trailer over that weight, and was registered for only 9900 I could be deemed in violation and cited if I got stopped. At the time I owned a 30' Classic with a 10,000lb GVWR so I decided not to take the chance. It's a fee issue, not a safety issue but it's not a stretch to imagine that could be used against you in certain circumstances.

I agree with the registration charge issue. Not applicable everywhere, but if you don't have the appropriate registration where you are licensed you can be ticketed.

Also, in California, you need the correct operator's license to tow a trailer with a GVWR over 10,000 lbs. One can be ticketed for that.

What I didn't understand was how the truck GVWR related to the trailer GVWR and the potential ticket that would result. California requires a certain weight of tow vehicle (4000 lbs) to tow a heavier (6000 lb) trailer, but that is well under pickup GVWRs. It is very difficult for jurisdictions to regulate tow ratings since the tow ratings aren't legally defined.

[Wazbro]

Originally Posted by jcl

There is no objective written standard to establish a tow rating. That is the crux of the problem. There is no reference in law to the SAE test procedure, an optional test standard which was devised simply to allow consumers to compare one vehicle to another. And no reference to the TUV procedure.

Case in point: A manufacturer's tow rating can often be increased by purchasing the "tow package". When this package contains a transmission cooler and not much else, how does the proponent of tow ratings being absolute limits for safe operation respond? Usually by saying that you might damage your transmission. But how is that anything to do with safety?

Part of the SAE test procedure includes the TV being able to tow up a certain grade without overheating. With knowing this it seems obvious that adding a transmission cooler could provide enough cooling to increase the amount of weight that the TV can pull up that grade to increase the tow rating according to the SAE test procedure if that was the limiting factor.

[CWSWine]

Below quote is from NTEA directory or education.

There’s a common misconception that a truck’s GVWR is determined by adding gross axle weight ratings (GAWRs) together for all axles. Although this was a common way of calculating GVWR many years ago, it’s no longer an accurate method. The chassis manufacturer task of establishing a vehicle GVWR is much more difficult today due to advancement of safety system standards and how vehicles meet these requirements.

https://www.ntea.com/NTEA/Member_ben...k_trucks1.aspx

[jcl]

Originally Posted by Wazbro

Part of the SAE test procedure includes the TV being able to tow up a certain grade without overheating. With knowing this it seems obvious that adding a transmission cooler could provide enough cooling to increase the amount of weight that the TV can pull up that grade to increase the tow rating according to the SAE test procedure if that was the limiting factor.

Agreed. Although we should note that the trailer they are pulling in the test is less demanding to pull than an Airstream, due to the reduced frontal area.

So with that cooler, the tow rating is raised. Very logical.

Now let’s consider the two scenarios, with and without the cooler. How is one different than the other in terms of potential liability after a crash? I suggest they are no different. One may experience transmission failure at some point in the future, but that is hard to reconcile with causal factors for a crash prior to the potential transmission failure.

This is the definition of the tow rating being arbitrary with respect to crash avoidance. Not with respect to potential transmission failure, certainly, but with respect to causing a crash.