Guardrail Case Summary

585 Words2 Pages

Jay Scott Traylor was driving on a highway in North Carolina when his car struck a guardrail that was fitted with an ET-Plus end terminal. The terminal, manufactured by Trinity Highway Products, LLC, comprised three main components—an impact plate, guide channels, and an extruder head. When attached to the end of a standard guardrail, the unit was designed to absorb and dissipate crash forces by permitting the guardrail to be extruded through the unit’s head and flattened out into a ribbon. . [Traylor v. Trinity Indus., Inc.] When Traylor’s car struck the guardrail, the ET-Plus end treatment failed to absorb to energy of the crash. Instead, it penetrated the driver’s side floorboard area of Traylor’s car and entered the occupant compartment, impaling him. He suffered life-threatening injuries resulting in bilateral leg amputations. Traylor sued Trinity and its parent company, alleging that …show more content…

John C. Darko’s is a 36-year veteran of the highway safety apparatus manufacturing and vice president of Technical Support and Marketing for Road Systems Inc., one of only three companies producing energy-absorbing guardrail ends in the U.S. He said when Lindsay Transportation Solutions came on the scene, it didn't have much initial success. That was until Trinity Highway Products was taken to court for allegations of fraud in connection with its ET-Plus guardrail end. The company was ordered to pay a $663 million settlement in 2015 after a jury found the company liable for fraud. Trinity is appealing. "Trinity took the ET-Plus off the market, and that opened the door to Lindsay to be able to offer a product to the states so they had two to compete with,” Darko’s said. With many states requiring competitive bidding processes, whenever possible, the X-Lite immediately became a contender in the

Open Document