Tynecastle,
New capabilities create reasons to buy new gear, and the cold light of progress shines on all aircraft, including the S-76 (I had the honor of flying its first flight and structural shakedown, so it has a special place in my heart!)
It is Sikorsky's standard for several decades to design the fuselage to a primary strength of 20 g's down and forward, 10 g's upward and 10 g's lateral, which is somewhat better than the US Mil spec (Mil-1290) and a very great deal better than typical civil requirements. The S-76 (and S92) was designed to this strength requirement, too, so it is considerably stronger than most helos that we fly. This feature measures the protection provided for the passengers and crew by the structural cage they inhabit. The more the g's, the more the cage withstands without crushing. The crashworthiness is strongly influenced by this factor.
Regarding the rest of the crashworthiness equation, the S-76 baseline seats and fuel system meet the older requirements, and are surpassed by the new designs (unless one orders the options, which are available, but which consume some useful load.)
The S-76 crashworthiness is therefore equal to or better than most of the helos in operation today, but not up to the par of the latest machines, like the S-92 and presumably the AB-139 (it must meet them, I have never seen its type certificate data sheet as demonstration.)
Regarding relative safety records, I think the S-76 has the best safety record in the civil patch, in terms of accident rate and passenger safety. I love the S-61 as well, and I think they are close.