• Mar 3, 2005

A Texas jury found Ford at fault for the death of two women in a roll-over crash. In the the case Ford was blamed for not using laminated side glass in the 2000 Ford Explorer the girls were riding in. The girl's attorney said that thicker glass, which isn't mandated by government regulations, would have prevented the UNBELTED occupants from being ejected from the truck when it crashed. This lawsuit asks the question, "Why have federal standards if you can be sued because you didn't go above and beyond regulations?' The death of young people in any accident is tragic, but to look for compensation this way seems a little overboard. Lesson learned: Wear seatbelts.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 22 Comments
      • 9 Years Ago
      hey autoguy, are you implying these kids perhaps had just rinsed their mouths out with listerine before heading home, and that's why they had a .02? hahahahahahahahahaha.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Autoguyg, you are missing some points. Tech222 quoted a site that said it is "illegal to drive with any detectable amount of alcohol." Yes, it is possible to have .00 - alcohol doesn't occure naturally in the human body, so it is possible to not have any. WRT the source of alcohol- if you are over the limit it doesn't matter if you were drinking cough syrup. Finally, I believe that one can sue for just about anything. Filing papers is easy. Getting a court date and then a judgement sets the bar higher, but suing is easy.
      • 9 Years Ago
      This goes to show that you cannot win for losing with the lawyers and our justice system today. This case as well as others that have had people breaking the law, or using a product in an unsafe, can still sue for their stupidity and win a settlement against a company. Stike another one for the "Its not my fault society." Need Fewer Lawyers-More Common Sense
      • 9 Years Ago
      JEN - get your facts straight...it was SCOPE, no Binaca, no it was those fresh strip things. I laugh with you ha, ha, hardie, har, har.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Autoguy, you're going to be a fantastic lawyer! You're definetely not a good "auto guy", and I'll tell you why. Try to understand the idea that the RESTRAINT system in the vehicle is the seatbelts, not the glass. If you are belted in and involved in a rollover, and you make contact with the sideglass in the vehicle, do you want the glass to giveaway, or remain nice and strong for you to break your skull on? These occupants defeated their RESTRAINT systems. Any rational person cannot expect the vehicle manufacturer to be responsible when this happens. The loss of life here is absolutely horrible, but suing the manufacturer for the occupants neglegance is just absurd. Now, if those seatbelts were being worn and they failed because of ford cost cutting on the belt fabric or buckle system... now you have a legitimate case. Otherwise, you just further prove why all of society thinks lawyers are complete scumbags.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Tech222, their alcohol level was .02, is it possible to have a level of .00? Did you perform an autopsy on the victims? What was it that they were drinking? Was it beer? Wine? Or possibly something legal that could raise their blood level to the incredibly low .02. The article, and you know, don't tell me. RB, there has to be a specific law regarding the ability to sue for something. Here this would fall under the product liability tort. I'm sure Texas has a law regarding this. The requirements for this tort would probably not be met by a jeans manufacturer or shoelace manufacturer. A motor vehicle is hardly the same thing. Also, to sue the government for a tort, i.e. the high curb, is very difficult. In fact suing the government for anything is exceptionally difficult. So the myth you are propagating that people can sue for anything is just that, a myth.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Autoguy - you raise a good point or two(2). But Texas does have a seatbelt law...guess that doesn't matter? So a law that is meant to protect you is not really valid in a case like this? How about running a red light? Is n't laminated glass used so that it doesn't shatter and fly into your eyes? It is NOT made to keep you in the vehicle. Wonder if it has to do with the other problems that Ford has had to face lately? Did the Explorer have Firestone tires? As for your myth rant..." I'm sure Texas has a law regarding this", according to your other arguements...the law would not matter due to circumstance.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Yes, people are getting tired of these lawsuits. But, I don't see how point #5 has that much meaning. It would be nice to know how fast; what manuevers were done; and whether the BAC right before the rollover contributed to the accident. These are unknowns. They do not point to a problem with the vehicle. This is lawyering! Implant a notion that the type of glass has anything/everything to do with the severity of injuries. Hogwash. Misdirection. How fast were they going? How much driving experience did the driver have? (As if a HIGHSCHOOL driver EVER has that much experience) Why no seat belts? This was not an IIHS controlled crash. This was real world. How the car performed is an indication of your CHANCES of surviving a crash. Not a guarantee. Be very careful when a lawyer argues that we don't have all the info when some of the info points to a clear error by the drivers and passengers - well...clear to those with even the remotest amount of common sense. Not a malfunction of the vehicle. This is a form of a Goebbels lie. Say it often enough, it becomes truth. Lawyers want there to be as much ambiguity as possible. It allows them to point to "design deffects" with absolutely no engineering credentials. Simply put, the windows are not at fault EVER for someone falling out of a rolling-over vehicle. They were never designed to keep an occupant in their seat. Seatbelts were. All other info is meaningless.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Excellent strawman, #3. I'm still marveling at the general arrogance of people who spend 10 mins on a second-hand report and seem to know more about the case than 12 other people who spent hours hearing and debating it.
      • 9 Years Ago
      Mark my works: Disclaimer forms that have to be digitally signed before ignition is allowed. I predict that as an autoblog entry within the next 2 years.
      Gary Motelson
      • 9 Years Ago
      My father and son were killed in an Explorer one car accident. They were wearing seatbelts. The question should be, should car manufacturers force stricter regs when their tests show the current regs are not enough? Remember, drug companies meet fed regs. When their products kill they are responsible. People need to research issues before they make comments. Ford and other manufacturers pay, through lobbyists and fees, to have the specs what they want. Remember the Ford Pinto. Ford knew they could explode. There answer, in writing, was that they put a portion of the profits to cover potential legal losses. The money it would cost to retrofit a fix to prevent the explosions exceeded the amount they believed they would be exposed to in legal actions. That is the mentality of the company you defend.
      • 9 Years Ago
      What's the point of government regulations if auto makers just classify the SUVS as "light trucks" which makes them immune to the regulations anyways?
    • Load More Comments