Sorry that the unlucky SOB checked out, but this isn’t Ford’s fault. Engineers can testify that if they had made it wider, longer, stronger, lighter, a paler shade of blue, or more crunchy in milk, Joe McPutz might not have died.
HORSE. SHIT. The defect in the vehicle was the sleepy nut behind the wheel.
The award was to the family of the passenger. I see nothing in your linked article that supports the notion that the passenger was either tired or a dumbass. I will grant that he was indeed a teenager.
The article really doesn’t give enough detail for me to say that the jury was wrong. For all we know, it could have found that the driver was 99% responsible and Ford 1% and made the award on the basis of that tiny liability.
I don’t know quite what to think about this. Were studies done on other vehicles and how likely they were to flip if a person dosed off for a second then woke up?
It sounds like the design was flawed, and that if that family didn’t sue and win, another one would have. (Whose loved one hadn’t dozed off.)
The family’s attonery says the design is flawed, but aside from some irrelevant stuff in the article about Firestone tires, it looks like the Ford Explorer design could’ve used improvement, not repair. And until designs start incorporating technology that lets the car steer itself, nothing is going to prevent a sleeping driver from going off the road. Based on the facts presented in the artice, the judgement is preposterous.
Wait, wait, he FELL ASLEEP and it’s Ford’s fault he went off the road?
It’s not worth $61 million, that’s for sure.
You are correct. My bad for flawed reading of the original article. Mods may close this thread.
Well he was clearly tired, enough to doze off at the wheel, or so the jury was told.
“Dumbass” may be a bit harsh, though.
I wouldn’t call the kid a dumbass. I would call the members of the jury dumbasses.
I know from personal experience that when you fall asleep at the whell, then jerk awake 'cause you realize that you are driving, the vehicle becomes a little hard to handle for a second. Especially if you are going at a high rate of speed.
If the vehicle you are driving rolls severa times, you were probably going pretty durn fast.
This had nothing to do with Ford’s design, which may or may not suck. If the kid had been rested when he got behind the wheel, he wouldn’t have fallen asleep and the car wouldn’t have rolled. Driving while tired is just as dangerous as driving while drunk.
Again, this suit was brought by the family of the passenger. As in, the one not behind the wheel.
Bolding mine. Tired or drunk- if you attempt to drive you’re a dumbass.
I just fucking love this. Armchair jurors on the SDMB who spent 3 minutes reading an article think they know better than 12 jurors who probably spent weeks or months listening to all the evidence. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Then they should be suing the estate of the driver, not the manufacturer of the vehicle.
There’s no indication in the article that a design flaw was actually the cause (despite irrelevant references to Firestone tires). While I’d like to see a transcript of the plaintiff’s attorney’s opening and closing arguments as well as a list of the various exhibits, I don’t where you’re getting this “ashamed” bullshit. We’re discussing the facts presented to us and I’m unconvinced they show Ford at fault, let alone to the tune of $61 million.
Frankly, even if the executives of the Ford Motor Company had taken out a hit on this kid, with extreme prejudice, a $61 million verdict is bizarre.
It’s a 375 word article. Roughly a quarter of that is made up of post-trial statements, another quarter is about the Firestone recall (which is perfectly relevant, because the article is a news story, not a case for the plaintiff), and of the remaining half, most is taken up describing the verdict, the award, and the original accident. Maybe you feel that the one remaining paragraph describing the actual testimony sums up an entire trial sufficiently that you know better than a judge and jury, but I think that’s pretty unlikely (Elvis-alive-in-Blackpool unlikely).
If you’re arguing that the article itself is not a cut-and-dried case, then you’re entirely right, but that’s not the point, is it? When condemning the decision of a jury, you should consider the facts presented to them, not you. And you’ve happily admitted that you don’t have all those facts, yet are quite content to rail against the verdict. Which seems odd.
I’d be happy to read a lengthier, more detailed account. I just don’t feel like looking for one.
Feel free to round up a list.
It’s odder still to describe what I’m doing as “railing”. I did confuse the roles of the driver and passenger at one point, but “railing”? Please stop spraying your outrage all over my shirt. You’ll wrinkle it.
Me neither, but you’re the one describing the verdict as “preposterous” and “bizarre”. I guess I just assumed you might have more justification for those words than, well, bugger all.
I can only assume you don’t know what “railing” means in this context, so here you go:
“To express objections or criticisms in bitter, harsh, or abusive language. See Synonyms at scold.”
Given that you know virtually nothing about the case, I’d say “preposterous” and “bizarre” were both pretty harsh. I’m not the one that’s outraged; that’s you. I’m merely perplexed at your confidence that you are right, and the jury wrong.
Here you go.
Here’s their case regarding the defects.
I’m still stuck on the kid dozing and hitting the strip. If the driver had not fallen asleep the accident would not have happened.
DING DING DING!
Absolutely, I also want to add to this discussion that the BS in the article referring to Firestone Tires being defective is a laugh. The tire were defective is dumbass drivers couldn’t be bothered to ensure the proper inflation of the tires, traveling at a proper speed, with a proper amount of load sitting on top of them.
In nearly all of those wrecks, the tires were over- or under- inflated, traveling at speeds in excess of their rating, and many exceeded load capacity. Another bullshit court decision.
Sam
What if he had been in a truck and it did not flip and crossed the median and hit oncoming traffic. Is it still Fords fault because the driver screwed up?
SUVs (and trucks) are not top heavy deliberately. They have a higher center of gravity so they can do what they are made to do.
If you don’t use them for what they are for; or don’t drive them like you should, to bad to sad.
Newsflash [sub]dot ……dit dot dit dit dot dit……[/sub]New York, London[sub]dot…dit……dot dit dit dit [/sub]Tokyo, Moscow and all ships at sea.[sub]dit …dot…dit dot…dit[/sub]** Taller things tip over easier than shorter things.**[sub]dit….dot …dit[/sub]
Crap, I missed a big payout when mr.stretch fell asleep behind the wheel and totalled my Subaru! :rolleyes:
Any car can roll over when you overcorrect. I think the problem here was an inexperienced driver, driving a vehicle that people think is sooo tough because it’s an SUV. I see more SUVs stuck in the snow, driven off the road, or otherwise wrecked than any other vehicle–and not just because the fucking things are everywhere or because we have a huge number of shitty drivers–it’s because most SUVs are so poorly engineered for anything. They’re not a car, they’re not a truck, they’re just big, poorly-designed pieces of shit. Oh, for the days when an SUV was an actual sport/utility vehicle and not an urban assault vehicle/yuppy station wagon.
It appears that Ford will appeal the verdict…I wonder if we’ll hear about it if the verdict is overturned?