No wonder Ford cannot sell its POS product . . . it's crappy and it kills!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Train

Lifer
Jun 22, 2000
13,862
68
91
www.bing.com
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Does anyone still think product liability lawsuits are inherently frivolous?
While I have often argued against liability lawsuits in here, I will point out that I never said they were "inherently" frivolous, just mostly frivoulous.

Taken on a case by case basis,

McDonalds getting sued for hot coffee = frivolous. (I mean c'mon, McD's didn't have a super secret memo that said "our coffee is hot, lets keep this a secret")

Asbestos makers who failed to tell people asbestos was bad getting sued = not frivolous. These guys were just low down dirty bastards, they knew it was bad, but decided to keep it hush hush. They will get thiers.

Company's who happened to work with asbestos but had no clue it was bad, getting sued = frivolous,
The hundred or some small companies that the scavenger lawyers attacked for a quick buck should not have suffered. Most of these companies were just contractors, and were too small to fight and went out of business, laying people off all over the country.

Ford getting sued over the OP = not frivolous. Could have been frivolous, as Crown Vics are more likely to explode simply because they are often used as police cruisers. However, Ford, making a good amount of money on making crown vics for police all over the country (its not like 1 or 2% of thier CV's were going to polics, it was a LOT of them) Means they had a responsibility to adjust for the increased hazards of police work versus regular civilian driving. Add to that the fact they they KNEW what the problem was, and even had a PLAN on how to fix it, be decided not to, kinda takes all the good faith out of the relationships with thier customers.

 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
Hysteria defined:

From Wiki:

While the car has been highly rated for safety (and has in fact the highest rated safety for the money), there was some controversy and lawsuits in the 1990s over the car's gas tank leaking after certain types of high energy crashes, specifically when being hit at a certain angle offset in the rear at least over 85 mph (137 km/h). However, the safety ratings are still higher than any other vehicles at this price point. In fact the survival rate for these type of collisions was higher than any other mid-sized sedan, which perform worse due to their much lighter construction, lower weight, and shorter distance for a crumple zone.

Another interesting tidbit:

The condition may have been exacerbated by police equipment installers drilling over the package tray in the luggage compartment. Due to the gas tank's orientation, drilling through the package tray will result in drilling into the gas tank. The equipment installers would then install bolts that go into the gas tank and can cause sparking in an accident. Ford's solution in the form of a recall kit includes appliques to mark unsafe areas to drill in the luggage compartment, as well as a rear differential cover shield, and rear shock lower bolt shields.

OrganizedChaos is right on the money.
 

OrganizedChaos

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2002
4,525
0
0
Originally posted by: Corn
Hysteria defined:

From Wiki:

While the car has been highly rated for safety (and has in fact the highest rated safety for the money), there was some controversy and lawsuits in the 1990s over the car's gas tank leaking after certain types of high energy crashes, specifically when being hit at a certain angle offset in the rear at least over 85 mph (137 km/h). However, the safety ratings are still higher than any other vehicles at this price point. In fact the survival rate for these type of collisions was higher than any other mid-sized sedan, which perform worse due to their much lighter construction, lower weight, and shorter distance for a crumple zone.

Another interesting tidbit:

The condition may have been exacerbated by police equipment installers drilling over the package tray in the luggage compartment. Due to the gas tank's orientation, drilling through the package tray will result in drilling into the gas tank. The equipment installers would then install bolts that go into the gas tank and can cause sparking in an accident. Ford's solution in the form of a recall kit includes appliques to mark unsafe areas to drill in the luggage compartment, as well as a rear differential cover shield, and rear shock lower bolt shields.

OrganizedChaos is right on the money.

oohh reminds me of a story my neighbor told me. hes a fleet maintence guy for a town here in mass, i think it begins with a W but anyway, in the early 90s when they first started installing laptops in the cruisers to make room for the stands they had to move the center console/rackmount things all the way back against the prisoner divider thingy. the bolts the used were just a tiny bit to long but looked fine when they were putting them in. a few hundred miles later the driveshafts started dropping. turns out that when the cruisers suspension was fully compressed the bolts were nicking the driveshaft and cuting them up like they were on a lathe
 

3chordcharlie

Diamond Member
Mar 30, 2004
9,859
1
81
Originally posted by: Train
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Does anyone still think product liability lawsuits are inherently frivolous?
While I have often argued against liability lawsuits in here, I will point out that I never said they were "inherently" frivolous, just mostly frivoulous.

Taken on a case by case basis,

McDonalds getting sued for hot coffee = frivolous. (I mean c'mon, McD's didn't have a super secret memo that said "our coffee is hot, lets keep this a secret")

Asbestos makers who failed to tell people asbestos was bad getting sued = not frivolous. These guys were just low down dirty bastards, they knew it was bad, but decided to keep it hush hush. They will get thiers.

Company's who happened to work with asbestos but had no clue it was bad, getting sued = frivolous,
The hundred or some small companies that the scavenger lawyers attacked for a quick buck should not have suffered. Most of these companies were just contractors, and were too small to fight and went out of business, laying people off all over the country.

Ford getting sued over the OP = not frivolous. Could have been frivolous, as Crown Vics are more likely to explode simply because they are often used as police cruisers. However, Ford, making a good amount of money on making crown vics for police all over the country (its not like 1 or 2% of thier CV's were going to polics, it was a LOT of them) Means they had a responsibility to adjust for the increased hazards of police work versus regular civilian driving. Add to that the fact they they KNEW what the problem was, and even had a PLAN on how to fix it, be decided not to, kinda takes all the good faith out of the relationships with thier customers.
I pretty much agree with you on all points - there should be a relatively high standard of proof in liability lawsuits.