[DeepInEnemyTerritory]

If the Crown Victoria has not been redesigned to correct this problem then I agree with Ford.

[go star go]

there is no way to totally protect a gas tank from catching fire in a accident. if there issufficient force then the tank will rupture and gas will burn. everyone in this country has become sue happy then whine that everything cost so much.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

LEAs can't have it both ways - either the cars are dangerous, or they are not.

If they aren't dangerous, then they should not be suing the manufacturer.

If they are dangerous, then they should not be buying them.

[Ramius]

They're talking about Crown Vics that are rear-ended on the side of the road by people doing 70+. Many of the accidents are at 80+.

How, exactly, is it *assumed* that this should be a survivable accident? This is going to be a catastrophic event regardless of any "design" problem.

[stands2reason]

Ford can choose who to deal with.

[jim_trent]

Too bad gun manufacturers don't do the same thing.

[Moleman]

Politics aside, Ford is the worst OEM to work with from a suppliers perspective. They care only about cost not quality. Ford will unethically shop a suppliers proprietary technology around to the lowest bidder, typically a sell out to China.

[Still Thinking]

On what legal theory would someone even attempt to force a company to do business with another entity by court order???

[VeniVidiVici]

I predict the Sheriff will now claim an addiction to Crown Vics and submit paperwork for disability pay.

[yarddog]

One thing I don't understand about this is why can't the Sheriff find a dealer to buy from or does Ford have power over it's dealers to decide who they sell to?

[Dave278]

The City that I work for took all the Ford Crown Vic PD cars in and they cut down a bolt in the rear of the vehicle near the frame. They told us the bolt was puncturing the fuel tanks during rear impact crashes, and as a result Officers were burning to death.

Many are probably correct by asserting that many of the crashes are unsurvivable, but many of the autopsies show the Officer died from burning to death instead of the impact of a collision.

[JSteff]

"If the Crown Victoria has not been redesigned to correct this problem then I agree with Ford."

What problem? "14 accidents nationwide in which Ford interceptors caught fire after being rear-ended. Ford attorneys say that represents 0.01 percent of its interceptors on the road"

I think that Statistically it is almost perfect. Here is what I think happened. Good old sheriff Morris started the suit on Ford (even though "none of them Morris' cars.") hoping to get Ford to give him cars for free. In other words a negotiating tactic. Why else start a suit if none of your employees were injured by the product?

I hate Fords but the suit is another attempt by a government agency trying to cow private enterprise. Now he gets none. Good for Ford.

[NautiNurse]

Pinto redux?

[Petronski]

I defy anyone to name a front-engine vehicle that can be rear-ended at 75 miles-per-hour and not catch on fire.


It doesn't exist.

[js1138]

Unrelated to this lawsuit, I have had the gas tanks fall out of two Ford products. I will grant that these events happened prior to 1985, but I still remember.

[DefCon]

This is the tactic I had urged the cigarette companies to take with the states that joined in the tobacco lawsuit. Refuse to sell smokes in those states.

[stylin19a]

Do police depts. buy directly from Ford ? or a local dealer ? If a dealer, doesn't the dealer own the car ?

[Ronin]

I agree with Ford -- period.

If someone is in the process of sueing me, the last thing I am going to do is make anything easier for him.

[ApplegateRanch]

although the sheriff views the Ford interceptors as defective, he wants to buy new ones to replace aging cars because seeking other vehicles would be more costly.

Glad the sheriff is more concerned about money than he is about his officers' safety.

Wants money from Ford for "unsafe" cars; wants to save money by buying more "unsafe" cars, thus gaining from both ends.

IF Ford had sold him the additional vehicles, couldn't he then be held PERSONALLY liable for any future accidents, for knowingly and willfully providing those self-same "unsafe" vehicles?