auxilary Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Jury orders Ford to pay $61 million to teen's family in SUV crash 11/16/2005, 10:09 p.m. ET By JENNIFER KAY The Associated Press MIAMI (AP) — A jury has ordered Ford Motor Co. to pay more than $61 million to the family of a 17-year-old boy killed in a roll-over accident when his friend fell asleep while driving an Explorer. Ford was liable in the accident because it sold a vehicle with poor handling and stability, the jury said Tuesday. The company planned to appeal, a spokeswoman said Wednesday. The family of Lance Crossman Hall claimed Ford knew the Explorer was prone to roll-overs and failed to warn consumers about the vehicle's defects. Ford blamed defective Firestone tires for the Explorer's handling and stability problems, and the company knowingly continued to produce unsafe vehicles, Bruce Kaster, an attorney for the family, said Wednesday. "This tragic accident occurred when the driver of the vehicle fell asleep at the wheel while traveling at highway speeds. Real-world experience and testing show that the Explorer is a safe vehicle, consistently performing as well as or better than other vehicles in its class," Ford spokeswoman Karen Shaughnessy said. Hall was reclining in the front passenger seat and wearing his seat belt when the Explorer rolled over four times on State Road 93 in Collier County near Naples in April 1997. He was ejected from the vehicle and died at the scene. The driver of the 1996 Explorer, Melahn Parker, was charged with careless driving. Parker attempted to regain control of the vehicle, but a handling problem with the Explorer caused it to turn sideways, which triggered the roll-over, Kaster said. "Ford vehicles are supposed to be designed to slide out in an emergency situation, not roll over, and that's according to Ford's own internal criteria," Kaster said. "But the Explorer is one of their vehicles that will not meet their own criteria. It will roll over." The jury ordered Ford to pay the family $1.2 million in damages, and $60 million for the pain and suffering of Hall and his mother, Joan Hall-Edwards. Ford was not ordered to pay punitive damages Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RB26powered74zcar Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 So the passenger died in the roll over. The driver fell asleep... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 whata buch of bull. HE FELL ASLEEP! WTF mate? And his life is worth 60 mil? I should go crash in our explorer. I can't believe how pathetic some lawsuits are nowdays. I bet he was going at least 80mph when he lost control. Almost any suv will roll at that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastzcars Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I don't know. I mean I can se the pain that the family is going through, but to blame Ford. If anyone is to blame it would be the driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbob_racing Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 I am hoping someday to be on a jury in a case like that. There is NO WAY I could ever let that kind of award be given, even if I had to one by one choke the other members of the jury to death. This kind of lawsuit is totally irresponsible and serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of ambulance chasing attorneys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudypoochris Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 LOL i slide in the explorer every day. Granted ya it doesn't handle. But it doesn't matter when the driver falls asleep. Plus, I havent experienced the rollling voer thing yet either, I am sure i could flip it if i was unable to feel how the road is pullingon the car, but come on! Its **** like this that ruins the american car markets economy, that and shitty designs. Any car can flip, including sedans and coupes, they totally exploited this. The driver was inferior to the car. He obviously didnt know how to opporate the machine, ford should sue the state for issueing him a drivers license. Was this a long time ago, or is this a recent battle? I hope the appeal works... Imho the media is also to blame for flamming the whole explorer is prone to flip over and self destruct thing. I drive on the firestones and it is totally fine, ya the handleing sucks, but i drive it knowing this. It isnt noticeably anymore proned to flip than anyother suv bar the X5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusPuppis Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 This kind of lawsuit is totally irresponsible and serves no purpose other than to line the pockets of ambulance chasing attorneys /Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonzer12 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 What a bunch of bull, a 60 mil payout will probably cause a few jobs lost here and there. I am sick of these rediculous claims. There are millions of explorers out there, probably one in an accident every day and they aren't flipping over. I could flip my jeep very easily if I drove carelessly, does that mean that Jeep is to blame? No, its my responsibility to know the limits of the vehicle that I am driving. Not the other way around. I think this year I will sideswipe a pole and sue the Canadian Government for allowing snow to acumulate on my cities's roads. Don't they know that snow can cause a vehicle to have "poor handling characteristics" ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akeizm Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Complete joke. If they were to so sue someone it would have been the driver but if hes dead then thats it. But because the driver was either dead or poor they see no value in it so go after some higher power/business. Well done to another brillantly called case in the land of the big fat lawsuit. Heh jonzer12, nah sue because the governemt didnt didnt look forward in time and see that you were going to have an accident into that pole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grimlynsan Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 The only time i'd agree with a jury like that is if the problem was as bad as the ford Pinto case. If it could be proved that Ford knew of the problem but continued with production because re-tooling their factory was to expensive, they should have some action taken against them. But that money should be put into a trust to aide other victims of Ford Explorers (almost sounds comical) as opposed to lining the pockets of one family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastzcars Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 grimlynsan, I guess you brought up a good point on the pinto thing. I guess if ford did infact continue with production of the Explorer, IF it was prooven that they knew there was a problem or defect, then I would have awarded the 60 mil. BUT in this case the driver was clearly at fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperKid Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 My parents' boss is getting ready to sue Ford. But it's definetly not a frivelous lawsuit like this. Ford's not doing too good these days. What with stuff like this lawsuit, their recalls, falling sales, and a whole bunch of other things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2126 Posted November 17, 2005 Share Posted November 17, 2005 Idiot drivers, money hungry lawyers, and dumb jury members.......bad combination! Gee, let's see...if I buy a knife and cut myself it's the knife manufactures fault? If I smoke cigarettes (which I don't) and I get cancer, it's the cigarette manufactures fault? If I miss the toilet and pee on my leg, it's the toilet manufactures fault? If I get wet, it's the water's fault? Man, what is this country coming to.....a bunch of finger pointing bleeding heart liberal. Why don't they just TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN STUPID MISTAKES!!!! (Sorry for the political twist) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudypoochris Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 If i sit in a puddle of glue on the toilet seat it is home depots fault... What was the whole deal with the firestone tires any way? What was the total number of blowouts. Why were about ten million people okay and only a few affected?? I don't think there was anything else defective on the explorers other then the tires. BTW: I realize I asked when this happened, sorry the date was posted up top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grimlynsan Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 If I miss the toilet and pee on my leg, it's the toilet manufactures fault? If I get wet, it's the water's fault? hahaha that's classic. Everytime there is one of those frivilous lawsuits in Australia we shake our heads and talk about becoming all Americanised. There is an increase in this crap but we are still not as litigious as America. Thank god! Unfortunately we don't seem to learn from your mistakes, we feel that emulating them is the way to go. Sad really... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MatMan Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 If i sit in a puddle of glue on the toilet seat it is home depots fault... What was the whole deal with the firestone tires any way? What was the total number of blowouts. Why were about ten million people okay and only a few affected?? I don't think there was anything else defective on the explorers other then the tires. I saw a news broadcast that told of beercans being molded into the tires at FS. It's $hit like that happening at the plant that gets through QC and onto the roads and blowing out. Not all, mind you, but enough to be a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dladow Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Of course, it is always difficult to tell from a news story, but if you read it carefully, it appears that the driver woke up before the crash and was attempting to regain control of the vehicle. The plaintiff's attorneys must have argued that but for the handling problems, which Ford apprently knew about, the driver could have regained control. No doubt, the driver was negligent for falling asleep, but the driver's negligence does not, and perhaps should not, absolve Ford of its negligence. My question is, is Ford negligent for designing and building a vehicle that is prone to rollover? Or is their negligence for not warning the consumer that the Explorer's design made it prone to rollover? And prone to rollover compared to what? - a Z car? It seems evident that the Explorer has very limited ability to manuveur safely in an emergency situation. Is this obvious? What could Ford have said in its warning? "WARNING - this vehicle handles like crap, and it will roll like an alligator chomping a pig if you even twitch the wheel". What if there was an easy fix to make it less prone to rollover, and Ford didn't adopt the fix? Is that negligence? Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollum Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I've watched someone roll a Z on cops. If you can roll a Z you can roll anything. The guy was probly flying like I said earlier. And again, 60 mil?! I'd gladly take 10 million if someone in my family was killer for a LEGITIMATE reason. 60 million is WAY too much in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Of course' date=' it is always difficult to tell from a news story, but if you read it carefully, it appears that the driver woke up before the crash and was attempting to regain control of the vehicle. The plaintiff's attorneys must have argued that but for the handling problems, which Ford apprently knew about, the driver could have regained control. No doubt, the driver was negligent for falling asleep, but the driver's negligence does not, and perhaps should not, absolve Ford of its negligence. My question is, is Ford negligent for designing and building a vehicle that is prone to rollover? Or is their negligence for not warning the consumer that the Explorer's design made it prone to rollover? And prone to rollover compared to what? - a Z car? It seems evident that the Explorer has very limited ability to manuveur safely in an emergency situation. Is this obvious? What could Ford have said in its warning? "WARNING - this vehicle handles like crap, and it will roll like an alligator chomping a pig if you even twitch the wheel". What if there was an easy fix to make it less prone to rollover, and Ford didn't adopt the fix? Is that negligence? Dave[/quote'] Take a car, slide it sideways, and slam on the brakes...see what happens. I should go buy a Jeep Wrangler, "fall asleep" and lose control. I'm sure I could roll that thing 10 times at least. If I sue at the same rate (15 mil per roll), I'd have 150 million dollars. SWEET!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudypoochris Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Even though he woke up with enough time to gain control (although i doubt it concidering we only have his word to rely on) he would not be fully awake/aware and would most likely over compensate or undercompensate. It is his fault 100% imho. But as far as the explorer having a handling defect, I have one and i know it handles like crap, but there isnt anything unsafe about it. If someone knows exactly what the defect is please chime in. Plus, when you drive a car it is your responsability to drive the car within its limits. If i drove my explorer like a ferrari and flipped it certaintly wouldnt be the cars fault... although after this case it seems like it might be... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.