Ford Ordered to Pay $31 Million in Rollover Case (Because Glass Breaks in Rollover)

Reuters ^ | March 3, 2005 | Reuters

[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.

[cyclotic]

Stupid, ignorant loser, knownothing, idiotic, waste of brain cells and oxygen, get the BIGAUTO Company stupid jury.

[frithguild]

Oh, so it's the lawyers fault and not the jury who rejected the good sense argument you propose?

So what's your solution, "Kill all the lawyers"? Or just the ones you don't like?

[John D]

Both

[frithguild]

EXACTLY!

[naturalized]

Occupants that were not ejected lived - the ones that were died. Tough facts for Ford.

Read #13 again:

"Passenger Arturo Guerrero, 18, and driver Saul Guerrero Jr., 19, were also ejected but not seriously injured."

The plaintiffs' attorneys would have liked you on the jury, too.

Not wearing your seatbelt is dangerous to you and others in your vehicle, and in this case, caused two deaths.

How about this for tort reform: if you don't use the available safety features on a product, and if you had used the safety feature you would not have been injured, you lose.

[frithguild]

So what is stupid about the system, which you would reform?

[Abby4116]

Ford lawyers said the vehicle glass met all safety standards. The company now uses laminated side glass in some of its more expensive models - but they said increased safety isn't the main reason.

"The impairment of the driver caused the accident. He was driving too fast on a caliche road at 2:30 in the morning, and no one was wearing seat belts," lawyer J.R. Rodriguez said. "Ninety-eight percent of the people walk away from rollover accidents if they are wearing seat belts."

This does not say that they have replaced all side windows with laminated glass, nor does it say that the purpose of ANY glass is to keep someone from being ejected in the case of a rollover. It says that SEAT BELTS, which are required to be used by all occupants by law (assuming in Texas as in most, if not all, states) will keep you from being ejected.

Since there is a seat belt law, which was broken, I cannot see why any of the plaintiffs should have been able to sue Ford since they caused their own injuries.

If the side window glass had the purpose of keeping the occupants inside the vehicle, there would be no way that the window could be opened since that would compromise safety.

Yes, time for tort reform. If Ford caused the injuries by implying that the glass would replace seatbelts then they should be liable. I can't even buy the $6-10 claim that it would be safer since the window is made to be open!

[frithguild]

How about this for tort reform: if you don't use the available safety features on a product, and if you had used the safety feature you would not have been injured, you lose.

Agree 100%. I can go one better - Until 1900 - 1950 tort suits were barred by the doctrine of contributory negligence. If your negligence contributed to your injuries to even the slightest degree, you would have no recovery, unless the defendnat was guilty od wilful and wanton misconduct. Now we have comparative negligence, to prevent "harsh results", where the amount of the recovery is reduced by the percentage that your own fault contributes to your injuries.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

At one time in Texas, lawyers were considered "Officers of the Court" and were not allowed to advertise.
There were very few tort problems.
Now they advertise 24/7.
I do not know if lawyers are no longer considered Officers of the court or a judge said they were allowed to advertise.

[jpsb]

First, no intelligent jury would ever reach such terrible decision without a lot of help from a idiot Judge (lawyer) and scum sucking plaintiffs attorney. How did the plaintiffs boyfriend get on the jury? If that ain't a mistrail then what is? What fool would conclude that it's Fords fault when you get hurt drunk, speeding without seat belts on? Our civil courts have turned into a lottery, not a law court.

[naturalized]

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?

Well, what then? Ask Ford to build 50 different Explorers, based on the whims of juries in 50 different states? Or let one state legislate for the rest of the country, like California does on pollution controls? Ask Arkansas why they can't buy any Ford cop cars.

I believe in states' rights' as much as the next guy, but not when the Breck Girls of the world take control of my sister state's legislature.

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.

The jury is the system. Leaving it in their hands is the problem.

[frithguild]

I can't even buy the $6-10 claim that it would be safer since the window is made to be open!

In most states, the proposed alternative design that improves safety cannot unduly impair the utility of the product. Yet, a jury can accept or reject such evidence, if other evidence gives them a rational basis to do so. You would be a good juror. But how should such evidence be made "bulletproof," i.e. so that a judge can toss the case based upon that alone?

[The Westerner]

This 31m fine is one of the reasons prices continue to rise in this country. This is a crazy verdict. The Explorer is a very safe car as long as you drive it correctly. Same with other SUVs. I'm sick of hearing about the Ford Explorer's safety issues.

[The Westerner]

Thank you for your logic. And by the way, no one is going to ever get me in a Prius or other miniature car. I'll take my chances in a nice SUV anyday.

[txdoda]

During the trial, the lover of one of the plaintiffs' lawyers was thrown off the jury, but the judge failed to declare a mistrial.>>>>>>

Sheesh....I'm no fan of 'Ford Co.' either, but there are just too many WRONGS in this jury's ruling.

Wonder *if* the MINOR, DRUNK DRIVER, that was also speeding, was ever charged with any crime. ???

So will the lawyer & his 'long time girlfriend' (on the jury) face *any* charges ???




http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA022305.05B.ford_trial.d4afd3c7.html

Juror's relationship with lawyer stalls Ford trial
Web Posted: 02/23/2005 12:00 AM CST

John MacCormack
Express-News Staff Writer

CRYSTAL CITY — On Valentine's Day, lawyer Jesse Gamez sent City Manager Diana Palacios two dozen long-stem red roses as a tender tribute to their long-term relationship.


More coverage
Ford to fight $28 million Zavala verdict
Zavala jurors hit Ford for $28 million
Crystal City manager targeted
Mystery man attempts to keep Crystal City in dark about trial
Juror's relationship with lawyer stalls Ford trial



That same day, Palacios was sworn in as a juror in a multimillion-dollar product liability suit against Ford Motor Co. over a wreck two years ago that killed two people.

It was something that everyone in the county but the Ford lawyers knew: Juror No. 17 was the main squeeze of one of the plaintiff's lawyers. Like all small town secrets, this one couldn't hold.

On Tuesday, four days after the trial began, Ford's lawyers filed a flurry of anxious motions.

One asked that a mistrial be declared and another that Judge Amado Abascal recuse himself, claiming he also had known of the Gamez-Palacios link.

"The integrity of the judicial system and the purity of the jury have been compromised beyond repair," declared the Ford lawyers, also claiming that a surge of local outrage led them to the truth about Gamez and Palacios.

Administrative Judge David Peeples quickly denied the motion for Abascal's recusal. But in a seven-hour hearing Tuesday attended by more than 20 high-dollar lawyers, other interesting facts emerged.

Besides being Gamez's longtime girlfriend and occasional legal assistant, Palacios has solicited clients for him, including two of the four initial plaintiffs in the Ford case.

"She invited me to lunch a little after the accident. Mr. Gamez wanted to help, to represent him," said Nora Flores Guerrero, whose stepson Saul Flores Jr. had been the car's driver.

In turn, the plaintiffs accused Nora Guerrero and her husband, Saul Guerrero Sr., whose son later was dropped as a plaintiff by Gamez, of attempting to extort money from them last week.

"He asked twice for one fourth of whatever millions of dollars were out there. Everyone was just shocked," said Adam Guerra, an investigator for Mikal Watts, the lead plaintiffs' lawyer.

Both Guerreros denied making any such demands.

Zavala County has a well-earned reputation as a bad place to land if you happen to be a deep-pocket corporate lawsuit defendant.

The Ford case had all the earmarks of a hugely dangerous lawsuit, stemming from a one-car wreck in the early morning after graduation night in 2003. The vehicle rolled repeatedly after leaving the roadway. Two young women were ejected and killed; two young men lived.

Ford contends the deaths were caused by alcohol, high speed and the fact that none of the four was wearing a seatbelt. The lawsuit claims the deaths could have been prevented if Ford had used a stronger type of glass in the side windows.

In opening arguments, plaintiff's lawyers mentioned damages in the tens of millions of dollars.

Gamez, who referred his cases to Watts, wasn't in the courtroom last week after the trial began. Recalled Tuesday as a witness on the mistrial hearing, he said any problems lay with the poor quality of the questions Palacios was asked during jury selection.

"The whole point is, if the lawyer doing the voir dire had asked the simple question, 'Do you know any party involved,' that would have solved everything," he said before taking the stand.

Ford's lawyers said Palacios twice failed to respond to questions that would have revealed her relationship to Gamez, who, the record showed, had personally represented her in several cases.

"It's shocking to have someone on the jury panel having an affair with a lawyer in this case, and it's wrong," Ford lawyer Eduardo Rodriguez said. "She's trying to conceal from Ford her real motive to stay on this case, which is to help the plaintiffs."

Watts focused on the holes in the Ford lawyers' examination of potential jurors.

"No one is obligated to come forward and do the work of the other side," he said, urging the judge not to declare a mistrial, but, at most, to excuse Palacios if he had any doubts about the matter.

Abascal said he will rule on the motion for a mistrial early today.

[MeekOneGOP]

What a crock!! Bush is right. They need to MOVE NOW to get these BS cases pitched.

[MeekOneGOP]

And I can't believe a TEXAS jury came to this conclusion. I suspect
the judge may have had something to do with this outcome (cra**y
instructions re the law, etc.) .....

[frithguild]

I agree with each of your propositions. Not a good day for Texas civil courts. These jurors should be held up to public ridicule! But instead, the lightning strikes do not hit the mark. Don't you see the imprint of the MSM here? Nothing in this case implicates federal tort reform.

[Landru]

"What the MSM is not reporting is that the women were not wearing their seatbelts and the driver had been drinking. Essentially, the claim against Ford was that the side glass broke during the rollover, allowing the admittedly unrestrained occupants to be ejected. The jury said the failure of these women to wear their seatbelts was not a cause of their injuries. During the trial, the lover of one of the plaintiffs' lawyers was thrown off the jury, but the judge failed to declare a mistrial."

If what you've said is true than either of the above points means this *verdict* {spit} doesn't stand an ice cubes chance in hell.

...of being upheld.

[GarySpFc]

I have been a multiple lines insurance agent for 35 years, and have a lawsuit some of you will find interesting. In 1992 I was approximately 1/4 mile from my office headed to a meeting. I approached a red light a couple of hundred feet of so in front, and so I started to brake. Just prior to my reaching the intersection the light turned green, and I stopped braking and started to accelerate. A 16 y.o. boy coming from the opposite direction made left turn against the light and came to a dead stop in my lane. My right front hit his right front. The boy was taking his first driver's exam at the time, with the examiner in the passenger seat. There was a witness immediately behind me who stated I had the green light, and the boy had clearly ran the light.
A month later I was sued by the license examiner for injuries, which were highly questionable. The plaintiff's attorney, a snake, filed the suit in an adjoining county where race is a big issue. I had been a successful insurance agent for over 20 years at the time. My attorneys attempted to get a change of venue, but the court would not allow it. My insurance company had to settle out of court for a large sum, just short of six figures, because they said there was no way a successful insurance agent and company could win in a court where minorities would make up the majority of the jury. In the county where the accident happened the suit would have been dropped in less than a minute. I think everyone can guess which type of county the suit was filed in the case above.