Posted on 04/20/2005 12:02:00 PM PDT by wmichgrad
A Madison County jury returned from deliberations Tuesday night to award $43 million to Dora Jablonski in the aftermath of a fiery crash two years ago for which prosecutors say Ford Motor Co. was primarily to blame.
Jurors got the case just after 3 p.m. and handed the verdict form to Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian five-and-a-half hours later.
In his closing statements, attorney Brad Lakin asked the jury to award Jablonski and her family $32 million for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other expenses but left it up to them to fix an amount for punitive damages. The jury decided on $15 million.
Lakin argued that Ford ignored warnings from its own engineers that designing the 1993 Lincoln Town Car with a vertical fuel tank behind the rear axle was unsafe. Later, the company chose not to spend $9.95 per car to relocate the fuel tank to a safer location; Lakin said they deemed that option too expensive.
"It has to be a substantial amount to send a message that that conduct is wrong," he said of the punitive damages.
Jurors awarded $5 million to Dora Jablonski's husband, John Jablonski, who was killed after Natalie Ingram, a then-21-year-old SIUE student, slammed her car into the rear of the Town Car, which had stopped for construction on Interstate 270, near the Illinois 203 exit.
Ford's attorney, Jim Feeney, argued again on Tuesday that it was Ingram, not Ford, who was to blame for the tragedy when she fumbled for her glasses and failed to notice that the Town Car had stopped. Ingram was ticketed for failing to slow down to avoid the accident. On the eve of the trial, she was dismissed as a defendant in the suit.
Jurors gave $23.1 million to Dora Jablonski, awarding a total of $19.5 million to her for disability, disfigurement, and pain and suffering. Last week, Jablonski testified for nearly 90 minutes from her wheelchair. Jurors learned that she was burned over 32 percent of her body and came away with deformities to her ears, nose, head, face, hands, arms, shoulders, and legs.
Lakin told jurors that John Jablonski's final memory was of his wife engulfed in flames. He asked them to award her $10 million for pain and disability. "Her pain, at the time of the accident, was the most excruciating anyone could imagine," he said
Lakin also asked them to award $15 million in punitive damages against Ford, saying the company knew about the potential for safety problems for 40 years but that "no Ford employees were ready to accept responsibility."
Feeney argued that the company followed federal safety guidelines by acting reasonably and by offering a car that met the criteria of being reasonably safe. Moreover, the Town Car, he argued, met Ford's own safety design guidelines.
The explosion was caused by a wrench in the Jablonski's trunk that "blew" through the fuel tank on impact, causing the tank to rupture and igniting an explosion. But Feeney said the Town Car‚'s design "mitigates risk of puncture" by contents stored in the trunk. The Town Car, he argued, had met the highest crash standards in the industry. Accidents and fires occur in all cars, he argued, and the risk of fire in such a crash is extremely rare. The Town Car, he said, was designed with a metal barrier around the gas tank that was designed to prevent explosions. Ingram, he said, admitted she was traveling more than 60 mph at the time of impact, and there was no evidence that she tried to brake. Feeney called the accident "one-of-a-kind." For the fuel tank to be punctured, Feeney argued, several unusual factors had to be present, including excessive speed, failure to brake, and the position of the wrench in the trunk. "It was the perfect alignment of the moon, the sun, the stars, the planets," he said. "Everything had to be same for this to happen."
Why American business leaves America...
Why American business leaves America...
Maybe Ford needs to move the fuel tank under the seat.
Tort Reform!!!!!!
They are all to blame. We need tort reform today to stop this nonsense.
Atlas will soon shrug.
I wish someone would point me to the gulch.
bttt
brain dead motorist ping
"...point me to the gulch."
Let me know when you find it.
We have appellate courts.
Are you hurt? Do you need money? I'll take the case. Next?
True, but the problem is (1) the costs borne by the defence in bringing the case to an appeal and (2) the chill on other defendents who settle meritless claims because of the risks involved in taking a claim to a jury. What you really need is loser pay, something that's always been around in Canada and works reasonably well.
There are a lot of cars out there with this gas tank configuration. It's no more or less unsafe than other designs; my Z carries a 19 gallon tank aft of the rear IRS, but before the bumper, and it's not been considered unsafe. I've not seen any argument yet (that made sense) that explained why the Town Car/Crown Vic/Grand Marquis tank design is any less safe than, say, the Cadillac Fleetwood, Jaguar XJ8. or the BMW 7-series' is. Anyone seen one?
WAHOOOO!!!!!
Seriously, did everyone read right past the portion of the article that said Ford knew of the increased risk of explosion by placing the fuel tank behind the axle and chose not to spend $10 per car on a recall to move it? This is bean counting at its worst that placed unecessary risks to the consumer. The verdict is high, and will be reduced on appeal, but come on, this case was meritorious.
Why not blame the lawyers? The "idiot judge" who permitted this case to go before a "moronic jury" is most likely a lawyer himself.
I do know one thing, getting ANYTHING done to your car for under $10 is IMPOSSIBLE.
Seriously, think about it.
Do you really think that it would only cost $10.00 to move the gas tank in a recall? Secondly, if they did recall the cars there would be an appropiate spot to move it. The car was engineered with the gas tank in a specific spot, no other spot would be as well protected.
That is what the attorney said, but I would not take his word for anything.
Did you read the last paragraph in the article? Here it is:
The explosion was caused by a wrench in the Jablonski's trunk that "blew" through the fuel tank on impact, causing the tank to rupture and igniting an explosion. But Feeney said the Town Car‚'s design "mitigates risk of puncture" by contents stored in the trunk. The Town Car, he argued, had met the highest crash standards in the industry. Accidents and fires occur in all cars, he argued, and the risk of fire in such a crash is extremely rare. The Town Car, he said, was designed with a metal barrier around the gas tank that was designed to prevent explosions. Ingram, he said, admitted she was traveling more than 60 mph at the time of impact, and there was no evidence that she tried to brake. Feeney called the accident "one-of-a-kind." For the fuel tank to be punctured, Feeney argued, several unusual factors had to be present, including excessive speed, failure to brake, and the position of the wrench in the trunk. "It was the perfect alignment of the moon, the sun, the stars, the planets," he said. "Everything had to be same for this to happen."
I read the article and it said nothing at all about a recall. You'd better stop and think a little harder if you believe that a gas tank can be moved on recall for $9.95/vehicle.
The $9.95 per vehicle figure was after the 1993 design but before production.
"They are all to blame. We need tort reform today to stop this nonsense."
Never get tort reform without the President pushing. He is too busy with SS to pay attention to the more important problems. Most of the Republican party has fallen apart and nothing will get done for the rest of the President's term. Sorry, but when no attention is paid to the real problems, they wimps run, duck or hide. I will never vote Republican again. What's the use.
Amen!! Trial lawyers would have you believe that companies like Ford, Merck, Unilever,...h---, any corp. w/ deep pockets deliberately sit around and plan, design, and/or figure out how best to make their products kill, maim or poison their customers.
Only to a lawyer for whom totally unsupported assertions are second nature, and merely a debating technique.
There is no way to know that the modified tank location would have absolutely, positively prevented the same injuries and damage, hence no such assertion can be made.
Do the math. $10 x hundred thousand plus cars = too much cost to do a recall and move the tank.
Seriously, did you read right past the portion of the article that said the other driver failed to brake, before rear ending the car at over 60mph?
Life is dangerous, stuff happens, people die. Let's not make a federal case of it.
The best remedy for lawsuits is to limit how much attorneys can make from filing law suits. JMHO.
"Let me know when you find it."
Sure will. You do the same if you find it first.
Spoken like a true lawyer that has no understanding of the industry. I'd bet the "knew" came from a single e-mail that was discussing situations pertaining to high speed collisions. Much like the industries FMEA's are used against them in court, when the idea is to discuss potential Failure Modes......
WRONG !
Spoken like a typical ambulance chaser - incapable of basic reasoning
Sure Ford knew there was a greater probability of failure - behind vs. in front of the rear axle.
We know there's a greater probability af head injury in a roll-over - convertible vs. Hdt. DUH
The question should be of reasonableness - not knowledge of potential.
Ford's attorney, Jim Feeney, argued again on Tuesday that it was Ingram, not Ford, who was to blame for the tragedy when she fumbled for her glasses and failed to notice that the Town Car had stopped. Ingram was ticketed for failing to slow down to avoid the accident. On the eve of the trial, she was dismissed as a defendant in the suit.
Hmm... some future Darwin Award candidate plows into the back of someone at 60 miles and hour, yet it is not her fault???
Lakin also asked them to award $15 million in punitive damages against Ford, saying the company knew about the potential for safety problems for 40 years but that "no Ford employees were ready to accept responsibility."
Insane. A gas tank has to go somewhere. As another poster said, dozens of models have the same design. Are the owners now all potential lottery winners?
The explosion was caused by a wrench in the Jablonski's trunk that "blew" through the fuel tank on impact, causing the tank to rupture and igniting an explosion.
An unsecured metal object was in the trunk, yet it was Ford's fault!?
The Town Car, he argued, had met the highest crash standards in the industry.
But it is never enough.
"It was the perfect alignment of the moon, the sun, the stars, the planets," he said. "Everything had to be same for this to happen."
Yup. Lottery Winners often feel like that.
Seriously! Get me the plans and I'll point out a way that the gas tank in the moved position will be ruptured in a 60mph rear end crash too.
The $10 fix line is so easy to set up -
Tell me, Mr. Engineer... would a Metal Plate 1/2 inch thick have stopped that wrench?
Answer: Yes
How much would it cost per car to put that plate in, on say, 200,000 cars?
Answer: $10 per car.
Does Ford ever consider ways to make cars safer and decide that they are not cost effective?
Answer: Yes.
Did Ford spend the $10 per car that would have prevented this accident?
Answer: No
No further questions.
___
Like taking candy from a baby.
So - the idiot who actually rear-ended the victim in this case was let off the hook completely - even though it is HER fault this accident happened to begin with?
I don't care if there was dynomite in the trunk of the Town Car - the whole accident would never have happened had this idiot woman driving had been paying attention and driving in a safe manner.
But you see - you have to go after whoever has the deepest pockets. The person who caused the accident in the first place most likely didn't have enough assets to go after. But Ford sure does.
This is absolutely absurd. I certainly feel for the victim in this case - but they went after the wrong party and were encouraged by a corrupt court system.
Loser pays works great for me. I represent only fortune 50 and 100 firms. We would love a system that essentially makes everyone afriad to sue us. I am sure none of my companies would ever make a poor product again. And hey -- if they do -- we can get lots of government regulation to protect us!
Loser pays would be a nightmare for consumers and the little guy. But, like I said, my clients would love it. It is nice to send a lette to someone gently reminding them that my bill will be $405 dollars an hour -- if they lose.
Exactly, if they left her in the lawsuit she would have been found 99.99% at fault, and Ford at .01%, the lawyers would have got almost nothing!
THat right there, considering it would HAVE to be made by union labor, would cost $40 per hour.....
You can't punish a corporation, you can only punish its customers and stock holders. This judgement amounts to saying every single American who buys a car from Ford this year will pay for the car, and put in an extra couple of bucks on top of that to pay for this judgement.
The life's labors of millions of engineers and industrialists specializing in literally thousands of fields have made our society the most physically mobile in history. Just about anyone willing to work can afford to have a car and travel anywhere they want to go on a whim. It's incredible. A wonder of the world. I would say it's on the short list for THE wonder of the world.
Reading about the rebuilding of Iraq, you see that basic infrastructure like electricity and water are a major problem because looters are ripping out the pipes and transmission wires to sell for scrap metal as fast as we can put them back up. And you shake your head and wonder how they could be so short sightedly self destructive.
Well, right here in America the god damned trial laywers are looting our own civilization just as effectively one bad judgement like this one at a time.
People this will be changed.
I'll do it. The greedy bastards won't quit until there isn't a single job left in this country.
Ford actually builds useful things while useless eater lawyers feed off the carcass of American industry and business.
I will withhold my opinion till I see the details. If valid they needed to get hit and IMHO the people who made the decision need to go to JAIL.
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.