Jury awards a woman <Dr Evil> 1 beeellion dollars...almost

[Gurck]

The court believes nothing. 12 idiots believed that it's easier to blame a faceless corportation than a paralyzed middle-aged woman. The court system in this country simply does not work anymore, and juries are only a small part of that.

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: Gurck
The money isn't the issue... Ford will appeal and the settlement will be greatly reduced when reviewed by a judge instead of the 12 knuckle-dragging crackheads who ruled in her favor (which goes to show you how stupid she is, offering 100 mill of the settlement when she'll probably end up lucky to get 1 mill - and that's before taxes and lawyer fees), but unfortunately a judge can't do the right thing and overturn the ruling. Hence it will set a precedent &amp; make it much easier for future wrestling-watching, aol-using trailer park residents to abuse the system in similar fashion.

The ruling can be reversed and remanded if it was reached in an incorrect way (for instance, applying some law or rule that does not apply to the case, etc etc).

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: Gurck
The court believes nothing. 12 idiots believed that it's easier to blame a faceless corportation than a paralyzed middle-aged woman. The court system in this country simply does not work anymore, and juries are only a small part of that.

And you know this how?

 

[Gurck]

From cases like this one.

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
your analogy is wrong.

what happened in the ford case is more like, someone tried to do back hand springs down the stairs knowing full well that those stairs were more slippery than the average stairs to start off with and slipped. in which case it would be ENTIRELY the womans fault.

she was attempting a high speed manuever that she simply should not have done in a vehicle which had a higher center of gravity than the average car.

Do you know this for sure? I'd like someone to post a link explaining that the woman jerked the wheel very hard. What if she barely swerved and the conditions were just right for the car to flip, but with the minor changes to the SUV made in the future, it would have not flipped.

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: Gurck
From cases like this one.

So really, you have no idea. You just imagine that all cases are like this, based on a few that were perhaps a little crazy.

I wish you knew how many cases like these are simply just thrown out and not even tried. This one had to have some pretty convincing evidence that Ford was at fault.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: RedShirt

Originally posted by: Gurck
From cases like this one.

So really, you have no idea. You just imagine that all cases are like this, based on a few that were perhaps a little crazy.

I wish you knew how many cases like these are simply just thrown out and not even tried. This one had to have some pretty convincing evidence that Ford was at fault.

Cases like this even making it to trial, much less being won, is an indication of a pretty big paradigm shift. They also set precedents for future, similar cases. Why don't you try convincing people that Santa exists because of how many illustrations are out there, you'd have a much better chance 😉

 

[Triumph]

So SUV's have a higher center of gravity, and as such, are more prone to tipping over. No surprise there, yet now it is Ford's fault because of this? Lets consider another scenario, heavy cars don't stop as well as lighter cars. Is the next lawsuit going to be, "Ford knew that the Explorer couldn't stop as short as a Neon, and they did nothing to change that. If I had just stopped 50 feet shorter, I wouldn't have gotten into that accident and would never have been paralyzed. Ford owes me money."

 

[RedShirt]

Another Article

Ford has won the past 11 of these cases. So people do not ALWAYS win (in fact, it's RARE).

The jury found the vehicle to be "defective and unreasonably dangerous".

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: Triumph
So SUV's have a higher center of gravity, and as such, are more prone to tipping over. No surprise there, yet now it is Ford's fault because of this? Lets consider another scenario, heavy cars don't stop as well as lighter cars. Is the next lawsuit going to be, "Ford knew that the Explorer couldn't stop as short as a Neon, and they did nothing to change that. If I had just stopped 50 feet shorter, I wouldn't have gotten into that accident and would never have been paralyzed. Ford owes me money."

Yet again, the point is, is it PRACTIABLE for ford to make the changes. This is for the court to decide. According to you it is not practiable (which may or or not be correct, We do not have enough information about this case to know), but the court has to decide if it is or not.

 

[Gurck]

It's practical for any automaker to widen &amp; lower their vehicles. That argument holds no water, and indeed has been shot down roughly 20 times by now. Your persistence is admirable, but a bit lacking in imagination 😉

Originally posted by: RedShirt
Another Article

Ford has won the past 11 of these cases. So people do not ALWAYS win (in fact, it's RARE).

The jury found the vehicle to be "defective and unreasonably dangerous".

This jury could also find shoe-tying incredibly difficult - in fact, I'd bet money on it. I thought I explained how the law works and how big cases such as this provide a template for others like them, and how the more of them won the easier it becomes to win them in the future. I've also, unlike you, been alive long enough to see changes like this slowly come about. Tobacco is a particularly good example, as public opinion on it has changed so relatively quickly. Two decades ago, you could smoke just about anywhere, including in hospitals. The few who might claim it was in any way bad would be written off as treehugging hippies; their claims would be seen as absurd. Now, because of similar pioneering lawsuits, smoking is seen in a different light.

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: Gurck

Originally posted by: RedShirt

Originally posted by: Gurck
From cases like this one.

So really, you have no idea. You just imagine that all cases are like this, based on a few that were perhaps a little crazy.

I wish you knew how many cases like these are simply just thrown out and not even tried. This one had to have some pretty convincing evidence that Ford was at fault.

Cases like this even making it to trial, much less being won, is an indication of a pretty big paradigm shift. They also set precedents for future, similar cases. Why don't you try convincing people that Santa exists because of how many illustrations are out there, you'd have a much better chance 😉

There HAVE been cases in the past like this. The case I have mentioned before.

Are you not in agreement with this?

If there is a defect that the company knows about, and it is practible under the circumstances to fix the defect, but the company does not fix the defect. A person gets hurt and some of the fault is because of the defect, shouldn't the company be held responsible? That is what has to apply to this case and future cases.

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: Gurck
It's practical for any automaker to widen &amp; lower their vehicles. That argument holds no water, and indeed has been shot down roughly 20 times by now. Your persistence is admirable, but a bit lacking in imagination 😉

Originally posted by: RedShirt
Another Article

Ford has won the past 11 of these cases. So people do not ALWAYS win (in fact, it's RARE).

The jury found the vehicle to be "defective and unreasonably dangerous".

This jury could also find shoe-tying incredibly difficult - in fact, I'd bet money on it. I thought I explained how the law works and how big cases such as this provide a template for others like them, and how the more of them won the easier it becomes to win them in the future. I've also, unlike you, been alive long enough to see changes like this slowly come about. Tobacco is a particularly good example, as public opinion on it has changed so relatively quickly. Two decades ago, you could smoke just about anywhere, including in hospitals. The few who might claim it was in any way bad would be written off as treehugging hippies; their claims would be seen as absurd. Now, because of similar pioneering lawsuits, smoking is seen in a different light.

No it is not practical for any automaker to lower and widen their vehicle. Your definition and my definition of practible must be different.

Let's say this woman barely swerved and fliped. It would be practible to widen the SUV to make this accident less likely to flip.

Let's say the woman did a moderate swerve at high speeds. It probably isn't practible because people know SUVs are more flip prone and the ride higher than other cars.

Practible to you pretty much sounds like: "It must be IMPOSSIBLE to be injured in this vehicle, anything less is not practible" 🙂

 

[Gurck]

This is pointless, I'm done.

 

[Rogue]

I post some pretty damn good info on an article released just days ago regarding this topic and only one person mentions it? WTF? 😀

Besides, we do need more information. I'd like to see the Traffic Accident Report that shows the length of the skid(s), yaw marks, etc. to be able to make a good determination.

On a final note, everyone remember this. If an object comes out in front of you, drive straight into it *nearly* always. If it's a deer, plow into it head on, don't try to swerve to miss it. I believe (can't produce facts on this one, but I'm pretty certain anyway) that more people and property are damaged from attempting to miss the object than just simply striking the object with the part of the vehicle most engineered for that type of impact.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: RedShirt

Originally posted by: Gurck
From cases like this one.

So really, you have no idea. You just imagine that all cases are like this, based on a few that were perhaps a little crazy.

I wish you knew how many cases like these are simply just thrown out and not even tried. This one had to have some pretty convincing evidence that Ford was at fault.

Well, none of us really know for sure what happened. Ford's negligence could be played down in the public eye and it could in fact be their fault. The woman could have jerked the wheel trying to get a payout like this. One jurer could have been infatuated with the plaintiff and swayed the weak opinions of the rest of them. Ford's engineers could have been overcompensating for a mistake they made in the past and now feel guilty about when they recommended to widen the vehicle.

We only know what we've read. Based on the information we know, I think this lawsuit is outrageous. You think differently. We both speculated to come to our own conclusions.

 

[RedShirt]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: RedShirt

Originally posted by: Gurck
From cases like this one.

So really, you have no idea. You just imagine that all cases are like this, based on a few that were perhaps a little crazy.

I wish you knew how many cases like these are simply just thrown out and not even tried. This one had to have some pretty convincing evidence that Ford was at fault.

Well, none of us really know for sure what happened. Ford's negligence could be played down in the public eye and it could in fact be their fault. The woman could have jerked the wheel trying to get a payout like this. One jurer could have been infatuated with the plaintiff and swayed the weak opinions of the rest of them. Ford's engineers could have been overcompensating for a mistake they made in the past and now feel guilty about when they recommended to widen the vehicle.

We only know what we've read. Based on the information we know, I think this lawsuit is outrageous. You think differently. We both speculated to come to our own conclusions.

I agree 100% with this post.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Rogue
On a final note, everyone remember this. If an object comes out in front of you, drive straight into it *nearly* always. If it's a deer, plow into it head on, don't try to swerve to miss it. I believe (can't produce facts on this one, but I'm pretty certain anyway) that more people and property are damaged from attempting to miss the object than just simply striking the object with the part of the vehicle most engineered for that type of impact.[/b]

True. But moose and elk have the right of way, unless you are driving a semi or an M1 Abrams.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Well, none of us really know for sure what happened. Ford's negligence could be played down in the public eye and it could in fact be their fault. The woman could have jerked the wheel trying to get a payout like this. One jurer could have been infatuated with the plaintiff and swayed the weak opinions of the rest of them. Ford's engineers could have been overcompensating for a mistake they made in the past and now feel guilty about when they recommended to widen the vehicle.

We only know what we've read. Based on the information we know, I think this lawsuit is outrageous. You think differently. We both speculated to come to our own conclusions.

negligence? ford doesn't need to be negligent to lose a products liability case.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Rogue
On a final note, everyone remember this. If an object comes out in front of you, drive straight into it *nearly* always. If it's a deer, plow into it head on, don't try to swerve to miss it. I believe (can't produce facts on this one, but I'm pretty certain anyway) that more people and property are damaged from attempting to miss the object than just simply striking the object with the part of the vehicle most engineered for that type of impact.[/b]

True. But moose and elk have the right of way, unless you are driving a semi or an M1 Abrams.

Yeah, moose are the exception. Ditch it before hitting one of them. They'll fall right on top of your cab when you cut their legs out from under them, crushing you to death with their huge bodies. Most car cabs aren't designed to absorb that kind of impact.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Rogue
On a final note, everyone remember this. If an object comes out in front of you, drive straight into it *nearly* always. If it's a deer, plow into it head on, don't try to swerve to miss it. I believe (can't produce facts on this one, but I'm pretty certain anyway) that more people and property are damaged from attempting to miss the object than just simply striking the object with the part of the vehicle most engineered for that type of impact.[/b]

True. But moose and elk have the right of way, unless you are driving a semi or an M1 Abrams.

yeah i wouldnt want to hit a moose or elk (not likely in IL). i hit a deer once (in a 88 honda accord) and it did a LOT of damage to the car.

But i did get some good jerky out of it.

 

[KIAman]

The car only rolled 4.5 times. If it was indeed 41.5 times, then kudos to ford, but nope. Secondly, I can totally understand her 1/3 billion in compensation. Afterall, she could have been making 1 million a month.. *cough*...

Thirdly, why not. Let ford put costly "improvements" for our own mistakes and then when someone rolls over again (it will happen, it is probably a statistical fact), then what? Can you imagine...

In a press statement "Ford knew that SUVs were dangerous, and YET they continue to build and market them. Many people have warned them of the consequences of this action YET they still do nothing about it."

"BoogerKing was fully aware that fast food cause health problems, yet they STILL refuse to put warning labels on all of their boogers!"

"The government knew that recreational parks are continually harmful to people because of wildlife, dangerous trails, and animals, yet they STILL refuse to shut them down."

When you buy a car, you have a choice of..(a very simple list, I know)
1. Size
2. Style
3. Efficiency
4. Smog
5. Power
6. Reliability
7. Manuverability
8. COST

If you want the first 7, then you better be willing to forego #8. There are many other brands of SUV other than Ford Explorer, yet she CHOSE to buy the ford because it met her requirements (most likely due to COST)

 

[DAGTA]

Not all SUV's are as roll-over prone as the Explorer. Take a curve at 65mph in an Explorer. You get a little nervous as you feel the vehicle lean heavily. Take the same curve at 65mph in a Toyota 4Runner and feel safe as the vehicle hardly leans at all. I've driven hundreds of miles in a 2003 explorer and thousands of miles in a 2001 4Runner. I'd take the 4Runner anyday in a comparison of safety.

 

[CRXican]

women drivers, no survivors

 

[DAGTA]

BTW, how many of you know that the Explorer was originally designed and built upon a station-wagon frame?