Filed under: Trucks/Pickups
Switch manufacturer named in Ford cruise lawsuit
A new lawsuit has been filed that blames a woman's death on a defective Texas
Instruments cruise-control switch inside her 1996 Ford F-150. Darletta Mohlis died in a house fire in May while her
truck was parked inside her garage. Ford claims the fire started elsewhere and that the truck was not the
cause. Where the lawsuit gets a bit absurd is that DuPont has also been named, as they supplied raw materials
(Kapton and Teflon) for the switch.
I understand that its typical to name every party that may have some vested interest when filing such a lawsuit, but its highly unlikely that DuPont will be found liable. What is likely is that theyll burn through hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process of defending themselves, which doesnt seem like a good use of their resources.
TIs liability (assuming the switch was at fault) is a more difficult question, as Tier 1 suppliers (who ship directly to the OEM) are usually deeply involved in the design and validation process. If Ford under-specified the switch and TI met the inadequate specifications, then the burden should fall on Fords shoulders. On the other hand, its possible the TI delivered a part that did not meet all of the requirements, in which case they will feel some pain.
Some investigative reporting by WXYZ, the ABC affiliate in Detroit, includes an interview by a TI representative that pins the blame on Fords usage of the switch (of course). The fact that TI has paid out millions of dollars in out-of-court settlements, usually after being called into court by Ford as a third-party defendant, would seem to imply that TI is at fault. The failure mode - brake fluid enters the switch from the master cylinder, causing a short that ignites a fire - certainly seems to be a result of a switch design flaw. TI, however, claims that Ford powered the switch from a 15-amp circuit but specified it for only 1 amp, and additionally powered the switch from a Hot At All Time feed (instead of a switched ignition circuit) that left the vehicle vulnerable to the failure even once the ignition was switched off and the owner had walked away. The contention here is that while TI built a defective product, Ford applied it in such a manner that turned a benign failure into a catastrophic one.
The bottom line is that theres been property damage and loss of life due to what was probably regarded at the time as a simple component in a well-developed subsystem. It goes to show the difficulty in producing a large number of complex and safe vehicles when cost is such a critical parameter. Sometime, sweating the details means more than making a rattle-free piece of interior trim.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Phil L. 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
I must admit: I went out last night and found the switch in my 2000 Windstar (which hasn't - yet - been recalled, but has the same basic switch configuration as the vehicles that have been recalled).
It looks innocent enough (FYI: It's mounted on the brake master cylinder, at the end closest to the front of the vehicle, and faces 'down' in my Windstar).
I plan to learn more, but meanwhile I may simply disconnect the electrical plug, which would eliminate this particular fire hazard (but would also mean the cruise control wouldn't turn off when pressing the brakes - so cruise control would no longer be safe to use).
Reply
Chris K 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Ford's trying to cover up another safety issue? You don't say!
Reply
Joel A 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Ugh. Fortunately, this new discount offering by Ford only applies to new vehicles:
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0506/17/C01-218739.htm
Reply
matth 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
This makes so much sense. About 4 months ago my parents returned from work and, as usual, saw our neighboor pull his F-150 into the driveway of a house he was leasing down the street. About 15-30 minutes later there was a loud noise and they noticed his truck on fire, not as usual, and watched it burn down. Unfortunately, it was close enough to the garage to burn the entire house down. Wierd.
Reply
KT 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
No cover up...they announced this recall months ago. This is a terrible tragedy as it is when anyone dies.
TI was named also because they made the part. By adding DuPont to the list it's obvious this lawyer is going for any deep pocket available. They'll probably add the gas station where they last filled-up and it's supplier since it helped fuel the fire.
What this shows is how many people consider recalls irrelavant. I read somewhere that only a small percentage of owners take cars in when they receive a recall notice. They usually wait until the problem occurs before they take it in.
Reply
Autoguy 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
You got them KT. It's clearly lawyer's fault for cutting corners and producing a dangerous part for a vehicle that kills people. When will those lawyers stop wrecking America? It's the owner's responsibility to make sure all parts of his vehicle are safe, not the automaker's. When will people assume personal responsibility?
Reply
Paul 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
all of these american run companies will soon be out of business becuase of the shoddy products they make and the asian companies will eventually run whatever remains of american industry. its again clear that americans dont have the skills to compete worldwide. anyone would have to be crazy to buy another american made and designed product. next time i am in a toyota dealer I will make sure there are no american made parts in the car I buy. dont want my garage burning down.
Reply
patrick 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
1) the switch in question is a backup cruise defeat switch, in case the one on the brake pedal in the cabin fails. disconnecting _shouldn't_ change the operation of the cruise unless your primary switch is back
I would probably just see if I could wire a .5-1A fuse in line with the switch, so if it does fail/short, it pops quick, averting potential fire hazards.
2)Autoguy- no, he's not trying to remove responsibility from ford, he's trying to make a point that the lawyer is overzealous by trying to pull in the raw material supplier--it would be like if someone was murdered with an aluminum baseball bat, and they were suing alcoa for it because they supplied the aluminum for the bat. but no, the responsibility firmly rests on the OEM, and perhaps the supplier.
3)Paul- what a bunch of BS. yeah, some american companies have their heads up their butt. but to not buy a car BECAUSE of american content? that's just dumb. Honda accords, odesseys, mazda 6's, and most japanese cars have at least 40% US content, some upwards of 80%. we don't know the whole story. as eric points out, it could have been TI's fault solely by supplying a part that didn't meet spec. or TI could have made a part that met every ford requirement and specification for the part, but ford's requirements were inadequate. then the responsibility, IMHO goes to ford. or TI coulda cut a few corners to save some pennies due to price pressure from ford and marginally or successfully passed the requirements, but the materials used weren't tested for long term stability when in contact with brake fluid (years of contact, not months)
so the problem didn't crop up for a while...then the blame is on both, for not having sufficient requirements, and for the supplier not doing due dilligence to make sure the part would perform for the lifetime of the vehicle. but to go off the spout and generalize this one issue to all suppliers is irrational. if that's how you truly feel, everyone would be better served by you learning chinese and moving to bejing. then you can enjoy all the wonderful, superior chinese products.
I'm on a rampage!
Reply
Poe 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
This issue is being totally overblown by the media (imagine that). This SAME part has been used for ELEVEN (11) years in the most popular vehicles Ford sells - yet it's just now coming to light that there is a problem with it. What does that say about the odds of a failure and resulting fire actually happening in an individual vehicle? I'd love to see the actual odds... but I bet it's something on the order of a million to 1. About as likely as winning the lottery. Use some common sense (you're excused, Paul. We all know you'll bash any & every American product regardless of how good it is). I'm not saying there's not a problem... I'm just saying it's not as big a deal as the media and Ford's competition would have you believe. It a very easy to replace switch - and Ford is taking care of it. No cover-up attempt whatsoever.
Reply
WillDaThrill 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
My a$$. This switch has been used for at least 13 years (since they are recalling '92 models). Ford may not be doing some cover-up action, but their actions are still questionable. They have been having problems with cars taking off after being started and put into gear, now they are having fires. People have been dealing with these issues for years, it just took the media to finally bring it to light.
Ford just needs to pay these people what they deserve. Then they can sue TI if they are at fault. Its the running around pointing the finger thing that's costing more money. Ford made the product they should pay first off.
If I made you some cookies and the flour had rat poisoning (totally unknown to me) should you sue me if you experience problems? Hells yeah! If I found out that the flour was made with rat poisoning, it's my responsibility to sue that company. Customers shouldn't have to wait for the finger pointing to stop before compensation.
If it is a recall issue that they failed to act upon, sure I agree, they should get no compensation regaurdless.....recalls are free you know. But there are still vehicles with this same set up (same sensor and always hot configuration) that have not been recalled as of yet.
Reply
md 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
I am a little confused. Was there a recall allready issued when this happened, because if it was then Ford shouldn't really be responsible for the loss if the recall was not acted upon. If it was not under recall, then Ford should compensate a fair amount and show that they are actually sorry. A SINCERE apology from Bill Ford and the engineers who worked on the defective part would probably also be welcome from the family.
Paul, do you say the ignorant things you say because you actually believe them, or do you do it just to get a rise out of the bloggers?
Reply
WillDaThrill 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Im not too sure when the recall was issued md, but we had a blog about it a few weeks ago about the recall. But if you don't act on any type of recall, you are at fault (as we mentioned)
Reply
Richard Warren 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Paul,
Do you live in a vacuum? There is not one automaker, import or domestic that has not had a problem with fires at one point or another.
It might be accident related, it might be defective parts, but all have had the problem.
No product is 100% safe, and a recall is a way of taking care of that problem. Toyota, Honda, Nissan have all had recalls, all have had fire incidents. Toyota has engine sludge problems.
Sorry to say no company or car is perfect.
Reply
Adam 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Gm has no recent problems like this.
Ford sucks and covers up there problems untill some one dies or loses something.
Ford is an imature little company who sells broken down pieces of trash that needs to go to the junk yard. I feel for the peoples lost and now know that they probably found out there mistakes.
Ford needs to shut down and close. And America needs to stop buying forein cars and broken down American cars. Buy General motors and Dodge unless you want yours to be in the shop or in another recall.
Gm will rule the world and already does to many!
Reply
Chris Lascola 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
I was changing my air filter today in my 1996 Ford Windstar and saw the cruise control pressure switch was disconnected and charred to a crisp. From what I have been reading today, I have so far avoided the worst possible scenario.
I have pictures and if this helps anyone in any situation , I will be happy to send them to you.
Reply
Kris 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
Chris
I have a 1996 Ford Windstar; exactly where did you find the cruise control switch? I would like to disconnect mine. I typically park my van in the garage under my children's bedroom, but am not doing that any longer until I get this disconnected.
Thanks
Reply
Denise 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
I have a 2000 Windstar and the Cruise Control is not working. In addition, the ABS light is on all the time. When I took it to the dealer, they said, the fact that the Cruise Control isn't working has to do with the ABS light coming on, but they told me I could wait to fix it? Now I read they've recalled almost every other model Ford with this switch, except the Windstar...I'm not parking mine in the garage any more either. Is there an easy way to disconnect the Cruise as it doesn't work anyway?
Reply
Saeed 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
I have a Ford Windstar 1996 with 70k miles. Just got back a couple of hours ago when I started smelling something bad. I parked the car and went to check under the hood to discover a moderate blaze inside. Fortunately I had a fire extinguisher that helped me put off the fire before it spreads.
Thank god nothing was affected except this cruise-control switch and its wires.
Reply
Saeed 10:25PM (12/18/2005)
I have a Ford Windstar 1996 with 70k miles. Just got back a couple of hours ago when I started smelling something bad. I parked the car and went to check under the hood to discover a moderate blaze inside. Fortunately I had a fire extinguisher that helped me put off the fire before it spreads.
Thank god nothing was affected except this cruise-control switch and its wires.
Reply