# Step right up-get $61M because you're a tired teenage dumbass **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 19, 2005, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775 "2005-11-19T05:23:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/21 "2005-11-19T20:27:42Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > > [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > > > Then they should be suing the estate of the driver, not the manufacturer of the vehicle. > > DING DING DING! Yeah. But the driver’s estate doesn’t have 61 million dollars in the bank. The verdict seems extremely excessive. Also, was the passenger wearing his seat belt? I assume he was, but the OP’s article didn’t say so. If he wasn’t, there’s no way that the verdict can possibly be justified. ---
**Author:** ![Raguleader](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/258eb7/32.png) [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/22 "2005-11-19T22:44:12Z")
> [@GaWd](#): > > 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 ISTR a Consumer Reports article from a while back mentioning that the majority of the people who died in those accidents would have probably survived if they had been wearing their seat belts. The same article (IIRC), mentioned that while SUVs and pickups flip over more easily, you’re more likely to survive a SUV/truck rollover than you would a rollover in a sedan or a coupe (which, granted, are a lot harder to flip). Can’t find that article, but I found this one, which mentions that 80% of rollover-related deaths are from people ejected from their vehicles: [http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/maintenance-accessories/suv-safety-how-to-avoid-a-rollover-304.htm](http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/maintenance-accessories/suv-safety-how-to-avoid-a-rollover-304.htm) That said, the same Google search turned up lots of results related to faulty seatbelts. In any case, I’d bet you’re better off putting on a seatbelt that might fail than you are just not wearing it all together (in which case, it’s GUARENTEED to fail to keep you in your seat) I’ve heard horror stories about car accidents actually _caused_ by drivers not wearing safety belts, but that’s another discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/23 "2005-11-19T22:45:26Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Then they should be suing the estate of the driver, not the manufacturer of the vehicle. If the design was in fact defective, and if the defective design contributed to the accident, then the manufacturer should be held liable for some percentage of the damages. Liability is not necessarily an either-or proposition. > [@enipla](#): > > 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? Irrelevant, since this is not the fact pattern of the case. However, in the scenario you describe, if the design of the truck was defective and that defect contributed to the crash, then yes, Ford should be held liable for some portion of the damages. > [@stretch](#): > > They’re not a car, they’re not a truck, they’re just big, poorly-designed pieces of shit. And the question in this case is whether “poorly-designed” crossed over into “defective.” > [@neuroman](#): > > The verdict seems extremely excessive. Also, was the passenger wearing his seat belt? I assume he was, but the OP’s article didn’t say so. If he wasn’t, there’s no way that the verdict can possibly be justified. Not wearing a seat belt doesn’t automatically relieve another party of potential liability. IIRC, in Wisconsin failure to wear a seat belt reduces the other party’s liability, but it can’t reduce it by more than 15% (I don’t remember if that’s statutory or a supreme court decision). Look, I’m not saying the verdict was right. And I’m not saying it was wrong. I’m just saying that the link in the OP is very limited in its information and apparently lends itself to mis-reading (the OP mis-read it as apparently did some other people). The Miami Herald link may be more comprehensive, but since I refuse to register to read online news I don’t know. This is the sort of case that has “McDonald’s coffee” written all over it. I agree that $61 million in compensatory damages is excessive, but the idea that the award was excessive means that the verdict was wrong is, to say the least, odd. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/24 "2005-11-19T22:56:04Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > 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. Hey, if you can compose a series of transitive logic statements that start with a sleepy driver and end with $61 million, have at it. My inability to complete this awesome task myself prompts contempt for the jury at having chosen damages that are so ridiculously high _as to guarantee an appeal_ and years of delay before the plaintiffs (assuming they deserve _anything_ from Ford - which I find is unclear at best) see a dime. > [@](#): > > Given that you know virtually nothing about the case, I’d say “preposterous” and “bizarre” were both pretty harsh. Good thing I didn’t say “illogical” or you might have fainted. > [@](#): > > I’m not the one that’s outraged; that’s you. Please stop projecting your emotions onto me, thanks. My feelings are contempt, not outrage. > [@](#): > > I’m merely perplexed at your confidence that you are right, and the jury wrong. Given the facts presented, I’ll confidently stand by my opinion that the verdict is unsupported. In fact, I find it difficult to imagine what facts could have been introduced to justify such an amount. So far as I know, no vehicle exists that can self-recover from a sleeping driver, so lack of such a feature cannot be considered a design flaw. By what standard, then, is Ford found to be liable? I’ll accept a plausible theoretical line of logic, in lieu of facts from this particular case. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/25 "2005-11-19T23:17:05Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > If the design was in fact defective, and if the defective design contributed to the accident, then the manufacturer should be held liable for some percentage of the damages. Liability is not necessarily an either-or proposition. So if Ford is on the hook for $61 million, is the sleeping driver liable for $549 million, establishing 10% liability for Ford? If the $61 million represents only a percentage of the damages, what _is_ the total liability? $100 million? $500 million? > [@](#): > > The Miami Herald link may be more comprehensive, but since I refuse to register to read online news I don’t know. I was going to comment on that, myself. Can **Harborwolf** summarize, or at least explain who Gutierrez is, since his name doesn’t appear in the original article? ---
**Author:** ![Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e480ec/32.png) [@Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raja_Raja_Chola)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/26 "2005-11-19T23:23:37Z")
> [@neuroman](#): > > The verdict seems extremely excessive. I don’t want to hijack this thread with a discussion of Enterprise Liability theory, but there is an economic rationale for awarding high damages depending on the manufacturer’s behavior. It depends on the actual facts of the case, and I don’t have enough info to know if this is the theory the jury was operating under. Basically, the idea in a nutshell is that you can expect X number of suits with Y amount of damages per suit because of the defect. So, the total cost to the manufacturer of damage awards based solely on actual damage would be X\*Y = T. If T is small enough that it isn’t economically worthwile for the manfucturer to change the defect, than you want to award something really high (possibly greater than T) to force the manufacturer to change their behavior. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/27 "2005-11-19T23:24:21Z")
Sorry. Hadn’t realized that the link was subscription. That’ll teach me to preview. [Here’s](http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/11/18/build/business/25-ford.inc) another. And [another](http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2005-11-17T161641Z_01_SCH758527_RTRUKOC_0_US-AUTOS-FORD-ROLLOVER.xml&archived=False). Hope these work better for you **Otto**. From the first link. Bolding mine. > [@](#): > > The parents of the 18-year-old who died when he was thrown from an overturned Explorer \*\*despite wearing his seat belt \*\* are more interested in justice than money, Barrett said. There you go **neuroman**. For me, the verdict hangs upon the driver being asleep. If they proved that the vehicle could’ve flipped during normal driving conditions, then I can see the verdict being justified. Otherwise it’s the drivers fault for falling asleep at the wheel. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/28 "2005-11-19T23:42:01Z")
Okay, I decided to just gather some facts on my own, and though many of the google hits are just repeats of an AP article, they seem to agree on a few facts: [ul][li]The passenger was wearing a seatbelt, but was ejected from the vehicle anyway[/li][li]The driver did doze off[/li][li]The $61 million (actually 61.2) consists of $1.2 million in damages, $60 million for pain and suffering, zero in punitive[/ul][/li] I could (in theory) imagine a jury assessing punitive damages relating to a useless seatbelt, but unless Florida has a “pain and suffering” standard that determines auto accident victims and their survivors suffer the equivalent of tens of millions of dollars worth, I don’t see the $60 million as justified. I’m mildly curious what an assault victim’s suffering would be worth, by this standard. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/29 "2005-11-19T23:49:30Z")
I always love the genusis who want to monday morning quarterback verdicts when they themselves happily admit that: 1. they don’t have all the facts 2 ) they haven’t bothered to find out any of the legal principles or laws involved There are any number of fascinating questions to debate about our legal system, how damages work, whether fines for pain and suffering are ridiculously high or low or whatever. But anyone who makes bold declaratives about cases like this in complete ignorance of any of the key underlying elements of these issues is wasting everyones time, and no ammount of half-assed after the fact googling can help save what is already a preposterously nosedived thread. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/30 "2005-11-20T00:01:25Z")
To put a little insight into auto lawsuits, I used to clerk on the corporate law for a major auto manufacturer. The basis of a lot of the lawsuits was “You knew, you put a price to it, the price didn’t equal what you thought you’d pay into lawsuits, so you didn’t fix it”. A nice black and white view of the world, but not so simple. I did come away from that job thinking that occasionally, with things like side impact airbags, the auto industry could have done more. But with the engineering involved in putting a vehicle on the road and making it viable and safe for hundreds of thousands of miles, while still getting decent fuel economy, remaining comfortable, stopping on a dime, etc. etc. etc., it really isn’t such a simple question. There is also the law of unintended circumstances. Say they find a stabilizer bar that reduces yaw around curves. A boon to safety and handeling, possibly preventing thousands of accidents. But they find out after the vehicle has been rolled out that if that stabilizer hits a pot hole on a curve at just the right moment, the bar can sheer, causing more sway and a possible rollover. But that would only happen in small numbers, less than they think it would save. So now they know. If they take the stabilizer away, they can be painted as negligent. If they keep them there, they can be painted as negligent. Bummer, eh? ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/31 "2005-11-20T00:31:51Z")
> [@Bryan Eckers](#): > > So if Ford is on the hook for $61 million, is the sleeping driver liable for $549 million, establishing 10% liability for Ford? If the $61 million represents only a percentage of the damages, what is the total liability? $100 million? $500 million? I don’t know if the driver (was he killed as well? I don’t know how anyone would know he fell asleep at the wheel if he had also been killed) or his estate were named defendants in this suit or if a separate suit has been or will be filed. I don’t know if the verdict means that the jury assigned liability to any entity other than Ford or if the question of alternate liability was before it. > [@Raja Raja Chola](#): > > I don’t want to hijack this thread with a discussion of Enterprise Liability theory, but there is an economic rationale for awarding high damages depending on the manufacturer’s behavior. It depends on the actual facts of the case, and I don’t have enough info to know if this is the theory the jury was operating under. > > Basically, the idea in a nutshell is that you can expect X number of suits with Y amount of damages per suit because of the defect. So, the total cost to the manufacturer of damage awards based solely on actual damage would be X\*Y = T. If T is small enough that it isn’t economically worthwile for the manfucturer to change the defect, than you want to award something really high (possibly greater than T) to force the manufacturer to change their behavior. Yeah, we all saw _Fight Club_ too. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/32 "2005-11-20T00:39:13Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > There is also the law of unintended circumstances. Say they find a stabilizer bar that reduces yaw around curves. A boon to safety and handeling, possibly preventing thousands of accidents. But they find out after the vehicle has been rolled out that if that stabilizer hits a pot hole on a curve at just the right moment, the bar can sheer, causing more sway and a possible rollover. But that would only happen in small numbers, less than they think it would save. Adding to this is the law of large numbers. A car company prototypes and extensively tests a design, but it’s not until there are a million cars on the road that the one-chance-in-a-million accident occurs. > [@](#): > > Bummer, eh? Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e480ec/32.png) [@Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raja_Raja_Chola)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/33 "2005-11-20T00:43:21Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > Yeah, we all saw _Fight Club_ too. Well, goody for you. I was actually relying on my tort class from last semester. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/34 "2005-11-20T00:46:27Z")
> [@Raja Raja Chola](#): > > Well, goody for you. I was actually relying on my tort class from last semester. You should’ve remebered, then. The first rule of tort class _is you don’t talk about tort class!_ ---
**Author:** ![Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e480ec/32.png) [@Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raja_Raja_Chola)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/35 "2005-11-20T00:51:40Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > You should’ve remebered, then. The first rule of tort class _is you don’t talk about tort class!_ Oh, man, I was all set to be pissy with **Otto** , and you had to make me laugh. I’m suing. ---
**Author:** ![Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e480ec/32.png) [@Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raja_Raja_Chola)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/36 "2005-11-20T00:54:15Z")
> [@NurseCarmen](#): > > So now they know. If they take the stabilizer away, they can be painted as negligent. If they keep them there, they can be painted as negligent. > > Bummer, eh? Yeah, a bit. But in the case where there is an unavoidable design defect, it’s not necessarily a bad thing that the manufacturer be held liable anyway. By doing so, you prevent the system of manufacturers/users from externalizing the costs of their activities. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/37 "2005-11-20T02:20:11Z")
> [@Raja Raja Chola](#): > > Oh, man, I was all set to be pissy with **Otto** , and you had to make me laugh. I’m suing. Make sure you name the Chicago Reader in your suit. Their pockets are deeper than mine. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/38 "2005-11-20T14:54:03Z")
It’s because of idiots like this that SUV’s are becoming less than they can be. The only thing I see wrong with the Ford Explorer is that it has too LOW of a center of gravity. Look at the new ones. Since the Firestone bullshit, the explorer has been redesigned to have maybe 5 inches of ground clearance. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775/39 "2005-11-20T22:26:20Z")
So I guess we’ll be seeing a recall of all affected Ford Explorers then? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/step-right-up-get-61m-because-youre-a-tired-teenage-dumbass/331775.md?page=1)