Posted on 03/03/2005 7:56:48 AM PST by naturalized
A Texas jury has found Ford Motor Co. liable for a rollover accident involving a Ford Explorer in another legal setback for the manufacturer of America's most popular sport utility vehicle.
On Tuesday, the jury in Zavala County District Court ordered Ford to pay $31 million in compensatory damages in the case, Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
If juries keep running amok with rewards like this ($369 mil in a similar case), there are going to be dire, dire consequences, including huge increases in costs for buying goods and high unemployment because companies will not be able to stay afloat. The lawyers really do run the world and they're doing a crappy job.
Are there any picture of the car after the rollover?
Well, when a trial lawyer can "shop" for a judge, "shop" for the right court and pick the jury they want - yeah - you are going to idiot juries...
This is an obviously excessive verdict. Generally, if it shocks the judicial conscience it will be thrown out and retried. That presupposes this judge has a conscience. Who ended up taking the blame is also totally wrong. But this is the fault of the JURY.
How would tort reform help this?
Where in this article does it say that the glass broke?
This isn't the actual headline, btw.
One that says that if the manufacturer builds a product that complies with a design expressly allowed in an applicable federal regulation, that the product cannot be found to be defective by reason of its design.
Is there anything to the temepered glass argument?
This is exactly the kind of thinking that plaintiffs' lawyers want from juries. Which part of glass breaking in a rollover accident don't you understand? All glass breaks in a rollover accident.
After all, subsequently manufactured vehicles of the same type were equipped with it...
Again, this thinking is a plaintiffs' lawyers' dream. Just because a manufacturer changes something, doesn't mean they were changing it to remake an unsafe product into a safe one. Laminated glass in side windows is for sound reduction and to slow down criminals. It is not a substitute for seat belts.
This is ridiculous. And we will just allow this continue until our auto companies are bankrupted with these absurd lawsuits.
Tart reform, too.
This isn't really correct, and is simply wrong if you throw an unrestrained occupant against the window.
In most products liability cases the court employs a risk/utility analysis - does the cost of a safer alternative design outweigh the risks? Your example is not a very good case, and may not survive a summary judgment motion. No manufacturer owes a duty to ensure the safety of occupants under all crash conditions. What they are responsibel for, generally, is the amount of injury that could have been prevented by the safer design. In this case, the safer alternative design costed $6-10 in a probably $25,000 vehicle. Occupants that were not ejected lived - the ones that were died. Tough facts for Ford.
So how can tort reform help?
How did I guess that the "plaintiffs" were Hispanic.
There's a lawyer in Texas named Jim Adler who constantly advertises himself on TV as the "tough, smart lawyer", (I kid you not). He's constantly advertising about the amounts of "settlements" his clients get. The ads are hilarious (if not sick and depressing) and blatant about the amount of money you can win if you sue, sue, sue.
"Burned, loss of limb, hurt, wreck, Vioxx, murder, death kill", call Jim Adler, the TOUGH, SMART LAWYER!"
The ads are available in Spanish too. "Get the settlement that "yew" deserve!".
Certainly a proposition a jury could accept or reject. Plaintiffs made a case here that the laminated would have preventd the ejection of the occupants. So it's a jury issue.
Stupid system or stupid jury?
They are joking right?
BTTT
Texas is known for runaway verdicts, because judges are elected and backed by plaintiff's trial lawyers.
Forum shopping is a problem, but less so in tort cases. In tort cases venues is generally proper in the county where one of the parties resides or does business or where the accident happened. You get forum shopping big time in class action cases, where you have many parties living all over the country.
What would you propose as far as reform for venue in tort cases with just one plaintiff?
And which of the rejected occupants had there seat belts on as required by law?
What we have here is another scum sucking lawyer making it imposible to do business in the USA.
Actually, the PVB layer is designed to prevent the occupant from ejecting through the glass. Part of the head may break glass and PVB, but will not take the entire body through. Additionally, the windshield adhesive holds the glass onto the frame of the vehicle, preventing release and ejection.
Once the glass cracks, it loses structural integrity, but will still hold together enough to prevent ejection.
The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards test(#212/208) is actually designed for a frontal collision at 30mph with dual airbags and un-restrained dummies. Because of the windshield, ejection simply does not occur out the front window.
Great photo's. You'll notice that thay had to cut the windshield with a sawzall.
This is a good argument, but it is not without its problems. This has been used effectively in the labeling of hazardous products. What federal power do you propose supports this intrusion into the power of the states to conduct their power to regulate torts, which should be reserved to them under the 11th amendment. Maybe the power to regulate commerce between the states? Excessive used of federal power, IMHO. It also makes the legislative process open to corruption. How much lobbying or campaign contributions will it take to get your cookie cutter regulation passed? Standards are fine - the fereral government should not have the power to make them preclusive. How is promoting perclusive federal regulation "conservative"?
This is exactly the kind of thinking that plaintiffs' lawyers want from juries. Which part of glass breaking in a rollover accident don't you understand? All glass breaks in a rollover accident.
Yes, it is, and that is why I have challenged you with it. And it makes the point here that what you have is a stupid jury. Yet, the tort system takes the lightning strikes and the jury escapes criticism.
Again, this thinking is a plaintiffs' lawyers' dream. Just because a manufacturer changes something, doesn't mean they were changing it to remake an unsafe product into a safe one. Laminated glass in side windows is for sound reduction and to slow down criminals. It is not a substitute for seat belts.
Same point as previous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.