Ford still owes $82.6m in Explorer rollover case
About this time last year, a case was under review in California involving a woman that was paralyzed after she rolled her 1997 Ford Explorer while trying to avoid an object in the roadway. The case has been bouncing around the courts since the crash took place in 2002, and when it was orginally brought to trial, the jury initially awarded the plaintiff $369 million, with $246 million in punitive damages. Over the past six years that sum has been cut down to $82.6 million (of which $55 million is classified as punitive damages), but no money has been paid out. The 4th District Court of Appeal in California was asked to re-review the case after Ford appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the vehicle met federal safety standards and hence, wasn't liable in the case. The court approved the $82.6 million payout yesterday and we're assuming that Ford is either cutting a check or crafting a new legal strategy.[Source: Detroit Free Press]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
John P. 5:47PM (3/11/2008)
DON'T PAY THE WOMAN FORD! She doesn't know how to drive and that is NOT your problem.
Reply
Carlos 5:51PM (3/11/2008)
Dang 80 million and 55 million is in punitive damages, don't you think that's alittle over kill?
Reply
rouse42 5:56PM (3/11/2008)
shes paralyzed!
brn 6:57PM (3/11/2008)
rouse42,
Assuming Ford is 100% at fault (a massive assumption), what is a reasonable amount of money. $55 million? $55 billion? $55 trillion?
Ask any insurance company, there is a price on a human life and it's a heck of a lot less than $55 million.
elprogramer 7:38PM (3/11/2008)
-Rouse: Exactly, how's she going to spend it?
Justin 9:45PM (3/11/2008)
Rouse, how is $55 million dollars going to un-paralyze her? $100 million? Life isn't worth a set amount of money.
K 7:28PM (3/11/2008)
It is absolutely unacceptable that this woman hasn't been paid yet.
Reply
Matt 7:54PM (3/11/2008)
No...it is absolutely unacceptable that a judge and jury think that this woman is owed A DIME!
She made the mistake of making a snap lane change at high speed. She is paralyzed because of HER own actions...Ford has absolutely NO FAULT in this matter. It is 100% driver error.
Noe 6:03PM (3/11/2008)
Its sad how america has become a nation of Law suits and counter suits, remember?????? its just sad how theifs get away with this stuff, but in this case she deserves something if it was indeed the SUV
Reply
Pete 6:05PM (3/11/2008)
I want to know more details about the case. I drive an SUV and I have avoided many different road hazards without issue. Can we know for certain that the tires were properly inflated etc?
Reply
3cubed minus 3squared plus1 6:28PM (3/11/2008)
I'm not sure if I remember it right, but she was turned around trying to calm her child/children down and when she turned back around she was about to hit something. So she swerved and it rolled. I don't know if thats exact because its been awhile, but yeah.
Dern 6:36PM (3/11/2008)
If you are on the highway and there is a dog...hit the dog. If there is a cat...hit the cat. If there is a rock...hit the rock. If there is a person...swerve gently only if no oncoming traffic. It is always a tragedy when people get hurt or die but your actions as a driver have to be commensurate with the situation, for the sake of public safety.
In years past this Explorer would be towed and parked in front of a high school as a warning of what bad, inattentive driving can bring.
Reply
SPG 6:54PM (3/11/2008)
Dern.
I hate to say it but you're right. It turns my stomach to ever think of hitting an animal but to avoid a barrel roll with a vehicle full of people it's what you have to do.
And as far as putting the crushed vehicle in front of a high school, my wife's high school did that with a crashed Cavalier about ten years ago for drunk driving awareness.
Gregg 6:40PM (3/11/2008)
There is no justification for such payouts, other than lawyers assure the aggrieved it is worth going after. The government now has an edict to put warnings for the brain dead that SUVs roll easier than conventional cars. Duh.
We all eventually pay for this stupidity in higher prices. Sure, standards should be enforced, but Ford did not willfully issue a faulty product. The Ranger is even more prone to rolling. Where is the groundswell to make 10s of milliions off that for each victim?
I feel awful for people that are disabled in severe accidents, but if we started paying every one of them $80 million, they would still be paralyzed (which is awful) and our economy would be in ruins as well (as if it isn't already).
Reply
jg 6:56PM (3/11/2008)
Without the threat of being hit with a judgement like this manufacturers will have no incentive to make products safe. This is how we police them. The courts are our only recourse. Just because lawyers also get paid isn't a reason to chuck the system.
trust me, even though Ford won't pay anywhere near the number above they WILL upgrade their slalom tests. They WILL make sure any car they manufacture can swerve without causing paralysis. It would be nice if they did the test upgrade because paralyzing customers is bad for business but that won't happen. They'd much rather avoid the publicity and keep on making their margins.
Dan 8:33PM (3/11/2008)
@jg
This product wasn't unsafe. It didn't do anything except what it was told to do with the pedals and wheel. It didn't flip on its own. It didn't spontaneously catch fire. (Right company though.)
It did exactly what anyone who's ever driven a SUV would expect that vehicle to do when the controls were manipulated in that manner. No different than pointing it at a brick wall and pressing the gas.
Ford can't just "upgrade" a slalom test.
They can lower the vehicle, they can put another 100 pounds of steel in the roof pillars, they can add computer stability control to try to filter idiot inputs, they can stuff the vehicle with more air bags. In fact they have done all of these things.
But those aren't upgrades, they're compromises. Compromises that make the vehicle substantially worse in other aspects - heavier, more expensive, worse gas mileage, less reliable, less capable offroad, less control for the driver.
And that's what product design by jackpot tort creates, an environment where fear of one person s--tting is enough to stick the other 99.99% of us in diapers.
Seth Kantrowitz 6:45PM (3/11/2008)
I hope I am remembering the details of this issue correctly. One of the main pillars of these lawsuits, is that Ford knew that this vehicle was prone to rolling over, but was so anxious to get this vehicle to market that they refused a redesign, knowing that significant numbers of customers would be would be killed or injured. Note the lack of roof reinforcement. It's not like Ford has a good record in this regard, the Pinto comes to mind. This vehicle was known as the car that saved Ford. This lady is naturally resentful that her health was sacrificed for the sake of Fords balance sheet.
Reply
Pete 6:53PM (3/11/2008)
No SUV is safe making high speed maneuvers. They have a higher center of gravity and have a tendency to tip if pushed. Don't drive like an idiot.
Joe 6:50PM (3/11/2008)
I can't believe someone could be paid that kind of money for not being able to control their vehicle, I could see a problem ( not an 80 million dollar problem I mind you) if it were a brand new car, this one was 5 years old when it happened?
Reply
JIm 7:00PM (3/11/2008)
Remember the Car and Driver test of an early Ford Explorer? Rapidly deflated a rear tire on a tired Explorer (worn shocks and suspension) at various speeds up to 70 MPH. Great concern at first, but ended up - as soon as the tire was deflated - taking hands off the wheel and slamming on the brakes. All w/out any difficulty stopping or controlling the vehicle. As I recall their conclusion was drivers may have "jerked" the wheel after a blow out, attempting an unneeded control input, only to over correct and cause an accident. There was also a Firestone tire separation issue about the same time and I believe that played into settlements also.
You aware, of course, that statistically as a percentage, Camaros roll over more than SUVs. Also something like 95% of roll overs occur after the vehicle leaves the road - IOWs in the ditch.
Here in San Diego there was a case involving a Ford Explorer that rolled on the freeway, killing two. The paper made a big deal of it and only by reading all the way to the end of the article was it noted there were six people in the car and the two killed were behind the second seat in the back. They didn't even have a seat let alone be buckled in. The other four were buckled and survived. There were also four different tires on the truck. I would offer that someone that has four different tires probably doesn't keep their vehicle is tip-top condition. Just saying.
I'm not saying Ford doesn't owe this woman compensation, and I wouldn't wish her condition on anyone, but $83 million. The kind of awards being doled out only foster large settlements. In the end we all pay.
Reply