We've all seen some really dumb lawsuits... but here's another.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8DTS99G3.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

NOV. 16 6:45 P.M. ET A jury has ordered the Ford Motor Co. to pay more than $61 million to the family of a 17-year-old boy killed in a roll-over accident when his friend feel asleep while driving an Explorer.

Ford was liable in the accident because it sold a vehicle with poor handling and stability, the jury said Tuesday.

The company planned to appeal, a spokeswoman said Wednesday.

I'm sorry... what? Let's back that up... the kid's friend fell asleep. Ford gets sued? I think I'm missing something... :ponder:

Whether you believe that they are unstable or not... that should not be relevant. The kid could have died in ANY OTHER VEHICLE if his friend fell asleep.

Seriously... I give up on people. :roll:

I think if I was on the jury, I would have done Ford a favor-and killed the other jurors for being idiots.

Shouldn't the friend be sued for manslaughter?

Not necessarily sued... but he should be charged for Involuntary Manslaughter... since it's his negligence that caused the accident.

Not necessarily sued... but he should be charged for Involuntary Manslaughter... since it's his negligence that caused the accident.


Yeah, that's what I meant.. charged. It's been a while since I've taken a PoliSci class. :lalala: :lalala:

We've all seen some really dumb lawsuits... but here's another.

ack, sry clearing my throat.

i am surprised at you, you goll dern armchair quarterback. a freakin' jury of normal bright people heard all of the evidence and testimony that you did not hear and according to you, because they are freakin' idiots, awarded the money to the plaintiff.

it is people like you and me who hear the evidence in cases like this, not idiots. apparently you are smarter than they are to have a preconceived notion of the truth.

obviously, you have an opinion of who is right and who is wrong in this situation, whether or not you know the facts or the law in this case. we all generalize....and sometimes, f the facts, f the law....i feel it in my bones, right? you sir, cannot sit on a jury i try and seat....a jury of people who will listen to the facts and make a ruling.

apparently you have the answer whether or not the law is spelled out to you and virtually dictates the verdict. you and you alone are the arbiter of the truth.

juries are shown the facts of the case as interpreted by both sides of the issue: then they rule in favor of who presented the better truth.

"The Associated Press/MIAMI
By JENNIFER KAY
Associated Press Writer

"Ford agreed there was a problem but blamed defective Firestone tires for the Explorer's handling and stability problems.

Hall was reclining in the front passenger seat and wearing his seat belt when the Explorer rolled over four times on State Road 93 in Collier County on April 20, 1997. He was ejected from the vehicle and died at the scene. The driver of the 1996 Explorer, Melahn Parker, was charged with careless driving. Parker attempted to regain control of the vehicle, but a handling problem with the Explorer caused it to turn sideways, which triggered the roll-over, Kaster said.

"Ford vehicles are supposed to be designed to slide out in an emergency situation, not roll over, and that's according to Ford's own internal criteria," Kaster said. "But the Explorer is one of their vehicles that will not meet their own criteria. It will roll over."

The jury ordered Ford to pay the family $1.2 million in damages, and $60 million for the pain and suffering of Hall and his mother, Joan Hall-Edwards.

you surprise me by taking sides. it shows your lack of depth. (not in a bad way but a telling way)

People will sue over anything.

another f'in armchair quarterback. a freakin' jury of normal bright people heard all of the evidence and testimony .....it is people like you and me who hear the evidence in cases like this, not idiots.

Well your assuming that the people on the jury were smart, when in fact they could be the dumbest people on the planet. Ive served on a jury once, and I'll tell you that there were some pretty dense people who didnt quite understand what "Without reasonable doubt" meant.

Well your assuming that the people on the jury were smart, when in fact they could be the dumbest people on the planet. Ive served on a jury once, and I'll tell you that there were some pretty dense people who didnt quite understand what "Without reasonable doubt" meant.

i don't want anyone on my jury not smart enough to get out of jury duty....(j/k).


btw, "Reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof used in a criminal trial, meaning a jury convicts because there is no other explanation for what happened. no reasonable person could believe it happened any other way. the other side of that is it is reasonable to assume someone else did it, the elements of the crime aren't there, etc.

in a civil court trial, meaning someone sues someone, a different standard of proof" is used to assess fault". it requires less proof. it changes the blame to something called a "Preponderance of evidence". the jury makes its ruling based only upon whether it is "more likely than not" that what the plaintiff alleged actually occurred.

there are two different "standards of proof" to prove a case. proof is 99.9999% certainty for criminal cases and only 50.0001% certainty for civil cases.

i understand the difference, although i was previously unaware that there were two different standards for a criminal and civil trial. Thanks for pointing that out. Im always up for learning something new.

The point however that I was trying to get to, was that you had also made an assumption. You stated that the jurors were just as smart as you or any other regular person, when in fact none of us have met any of them.

Whether Ford admits a problem or not... the other kid FELL ASLEEP. The Explorer didn't make him do that (unless the seats were really comfortable). But if someone falls asleep at the wheel, there's going to be an accident one way or another.

My opinion is just that this family is looking for some money now and want something out of this. Yes, it sucks their son is dead. But why is the friend not charged with anything? Why is no one doing anything about him? Ford is certainly not the only questionable thing in this "lawsuit".

Still a stupid lawsuit IMO. I would have laughed the people out of the courtroom... well, maybe not laughed cause they just lost their son. But I would have told them to sue the family of the driver. He's as much responsible as Ford.

Oh, wait... they probably don't have millions of dollars to give if they win...

amazing how everything revolves around money....they just lost a son and now to make things all better they want to see 8 digits in their bank account. people are stupid. i'm ashamed to be a person sometimes

what next?

I seriously doubt that after losing their son they cared wether or not they got one penny.

They probably wanted to raise awareness that the Explorer has a rollover problem.

Having 3 kids, I know that if one of them died in an accident that no amount of money would make it allright.

so why sue for 60 million? it clearly says

$60 million for the pain and suffering of Hall and his mother

they just want money..

when they get that check, they will thank their son for dying and making them rich and able to live in luxury

holy crap give me a frickin cheeseburger so i can gain 200 pounds and sue McDonald's.

in a lot of trials the pain and suffering award is set by the jury not the person suing

which is usually influenced by a lawyer?

holy crap give me a frickin cheeseburger so i can gain 200 pounds and sue McDonald's.
Nope cant do that anymore congress done ruled fast food chanis wont be held liable for stuff like that. :no: :doh:

The driver of the 1996 Explorer, Melahn Parker, was charged with careless driving.

Well, as long as the driver was charged with something...... I am suprised he didn't sue as well.

they'll never see it....Ford will keep appealing until a Judge or a jury of actual human beings overturns it.

they'll never see it....Ford will keep appealing until a Judge or a jury of actual human beings overturns it.

No offense intended, but I'll put it into a "nutshell"....

Ford management had knowledge this particular truck was "more unsafe" (as opposed to less safe) than other cars they sold, in the event some idiot lost control. They knew the truck had a propensity to roll over when other vehicles in the class didn't do so; and beyond that, when it did roll over (because of some idiot driver), someone in the car was more likely to be killed because the vehicle didn't hold up as well as other cars in its class. It is coincedental the driver fell asleep.

Had the decedent been in say, a a tC, he "more likely than not" would have lived.

The issue wasn't as much whether the driver fell asleep as it was that the truck was unsafe in the event someone did. The jury faulted Ford because Ford left a truck on the market that they KNEW would kill some folk because of its design flaws, particularly those folk who happened to be in the passenger seat of when an idiot "fell asleep at the wheel" (or saw a cat in the road, blew a tire, saw a pedestrian run out in front of them, or....)

IT JUST SO HAPPENED the facts in this case were as they were. A blown tire has resulted in similar law suits and awards, as did some cases where folk lost control when they were avoiding animals on the road, turning too sharply, etc. The design of the truck was flawed and Ford acknowledged that they had previous knowledge of that.

One cannot focus their defense on the driver falling alseep at the wheel thingie....it was not the "proximate" cause of the decedent's death. Obviously, had the driver not fallen asleep the wheel the Plaintiff would not have died. By the same token, had the decedent not gotten in the car he would also be alive; Had he been born three minutes later he would also be alive; had his aunt had balls she would have been his uncle. The issue is had he NOT BEEN IN A VEHICLE THAT THE MANUFACTURER KNEW TO BE UNSAFE YET THEY CONTINUED TO SELL AND ALLOW ON THE ROAD, clearly he would still be alive. Remember folk, he wasn't the sleepy driver. That is critical.

Internal memos showed Ford knew that less than cogizant folk (idiots), drove this vehicle who might fall alseep, might be drunk, might have a heart attack, might have a seizure, might let their freakin' alter ego drive!, etc. , and may therefore find themselves in a situation where they "lose control" of the vehicle. Ford apparently decided lawsuits were less costly than fixing the rollover issues.

IMO, people have a right to assume that in their car will meet the "minimum" standards the government has set for ensuring the vehicle will not find itself on its roof and you dead. These are liberal standards by the way, SUVs have a lot of latitude but only to a point, particularly when the dead Plaintiff's attorney proveD the company knew that they had a safety issue to address.

AGAIN, Ford knew this vehicle wasn't safe, therefore, the jury basically said "Ford, you knew it was unsafe, didn't fix it, kept selling trucks, did a cost analysis; and since you chose this path....We're gonna make it up to this family."

That was what I assume happened and don't get me started on the McDonalds coffee burn because I'll have your understanding of that one changed as well.

ha ha ha, i love this....the world is filled with jenious people who just sue for the money. There was one case where a guy, riding his bike at night with no lights or reflective gear, got hit by a truck, and sued the bike company. He claimed that he did not know not to ride his bike at night becasue the company did not put a warning label on.
Now, several people are right here, no, we did not hear all of the evidence...but if the guy feel asleep, i wonder as to what other evidence really matters.
Thats like if i fall asleep, run a light, and hit a person. Then sue them because they hit me, hell, i had the right of way becasue they were making a left...come on
ridiculous people = ridiculous lawsuits...end

ha ha ha, i love this....the world is filled with jenious people who just sue for the money. There was one case where a guy, riding his bike at night with no lights or reflective gear, got hit by a truck, and sued the bike company. He claimed that he did not know not to ride his bike at night becasue the company did not put a warning label on.
Now, several people are right here, no, we did not hear all of the evidence...but if the guy feel asleep, i wonder as to what other evidence really matters.
Thats like if i fall asleep, run a light, and hit a person. Then sue them because they hit me, hell, i had the right of way becasue they were making a left...come on
ridiculous people = ridiculous lawsuits...end

i definitely want you on a jury. i mean that in a good way....the truth isn't a competition, it just is. ( it seems from my experience that the more one feels there is no room for other than how one sees it, the easier it is to show another view....just my experience.

How much has Ford actually paid out to people suing them over the Explorers? I know they have settled some of them, but I thought the policy was to blame Firestone for making crappy tires (and by all accounts they were crappy). Doesn't Ford claim if you have the right tires, inflated properly, that there is nothing wrong with the Explorer.

If they didn't think they could win on appeal, wouldn't they just settle it?

I totally understand what you are saying about proximate cause.

How much has Ford actually paid out to people suing them over the Explorers? I know they have settled some of them, but I thought the policy was to blame Firestone for making crappy tires (and by all accounts they were crappy). Doesn't Ford claim if you have the right tires, inflated properly, that there is nothing wrong with the Explorer.

If they didn't think they could win on appeal, wouldn't they just settle it?

I totally understand what you are saying about proximate cause.

kewl, understanding is the booby prize. j/k

beer, brb

I got reamed in another thread for suggesting that too many juries these days are full of idiots. I have seen more juries in the last year and a half than most people will ever see, and it has only served to reinforce my previous impressions that juries disregard the law (to the extent they can understand the jury charges, which is another problem entirely), and do whatever they feel is right. When a big company is involved and there is a sympathetic plaintiff (e.g., a parent who has lost his/her child), juries seem to focus more on how to get the plaintiff "what (s)he deserves" and less on whether the defendant actually did anything to be held liable. Juries often tend to be much more deliberate and careful when the defendant is an individual.

Notice that I'm not saying anything about this particular case, since I don't know anything about it.

I got reamed in another thread for suggesting that too many juries these days are full of idiots. I have seen more juries in the last year and a half than most people will ever see, and it has only served to reinforce my previous impressions that juries disregard the law (to the extent they can understand the jury charges, which is another problem entirely), and do whatever they feel is right. When a big company is involved and there is a sympathetic plaintiff (e.g., a parent who has lost his/her child), juries seem to focus more on how to get the plaintiff "what (s)he deserves" and less on whether the defendant actually did anything to be held liable. Juries often tend to be much more deliberate and careful when the defendant is an individual.

Notice that I'm not saying anything about this particular case, since I don't know anything about it.

i appreciate that post. but that would just be bad lawyering, IMO. if i was on a jury, i'd just want to do what is "right". it seems there are two "truths" in every case, whether civil or criminal. there is the truth as descibed by one side and the truth as described by the other.

neither is the real truth because the real truth exists outside of the explanation of it for the most part. i think attorneys are saddled with asking that the jury believe that their version of the truth is closer to the actual truth then the other side's version of the truth.

(btw, ib from going to get beers)

One cannot focus their defense on the driver falling alseep at the wheel thingie....it was not the "proximate" cause of the decedent's death. Obviously, had the driver not fallen asleep the wheel the Plaintiff would not have died. By the same token, had the decedent not gotten in the car he would also be alive; Had he been born three minutes later he would also be alive; had his aunt had balls she would have been his uncle. The issue is had he NOT BEEN IN A VEHICLE THAT WAS AS SAFE AS IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY LAW, clearly he would still be alive. Remember folk, he wasn't the sleepy driver. That is critical.

Internal memos showed Ford knew that less than cogizant folk (idiots), drove this vehicle who might fall alseep, might be drunk, might have a heart attack, might have a seizure, might let their freakin' alter ego drive!, etc. , and may therefore find themselves in a situation where they "lose control" of the vehicle. Ford apparently decided lawsuits were less costly than fixing the rollover issues.
There is a common misconception which is essential to plaintiffs' attorneys seeking the big verdict in cases like this. The Georgia Supreme Court defines proximate cause as "that which is nearest in the order of responsible causes as distinguished from remote." Proximate cause is "that which stands last in causation, not necessarily in time or place, but in causal relationship." Another, more readily understandable definition is, "primary cause of an injury; that which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have happened."

The problem with the argument that any design flaw was the "proximate cause" of the accident, is that the driver's negligence was an intervening cause which broke the sequence of causation stemming from anything Ford did.

Also, as a reasonable human being, I have a problem with holding Ford or anyone else responsible for the potentiality (indeed, near certainty) that someone else might do something ridiculously stupid with Ford's product. Back in first-year Torts, we read a case where a California jury found in favor of a plaintiff and against the manufacturer of a weed whacker or similar device where the plaintiff had injured himself by sticking his penis into the device. The jury felt that the manufacturer had failed to warn the plaintiff that inserting his penis into an electric yard-grooming device was NOT a good idea. There's also the NJ case where a man sued the manufacturer of an above-ground pool for failure to warn him that diving into the pool from the roof of his house could result in injury.

Back to the case at hand, IF the accident would have happened anyway even if the driver had not fallen asleep, then Ford's negligence would be the cause of the accident and resultant injury. If not, it can't be the proximate cause. It's really that simple.

Well, okay, maybe it's not that simple. If the injury was made WORSE by something that Ford did, then the plaintiff could still recover against Ford even though the driver caused the accident. I don't know, maybe that's what happened here. If so, then it's not as bad as it initially sounds; if not, then the jury was dead wrong.

neither is the real truth because the real truth exists outside of the explanation of it for the most part. i think attorneys are saddled with asking that the jury believe that their version of the truth is closer to the actual truth then the other side's version of the truth.
That is the one real truth about all this right there.

There are a bunch of ignorant lawsuits. Maybe in this case Ford was partially responsible and maybe $1 million would have been enough but $60?? Ya. You are right though they will never see that much money. In 10 years they will settle out of court for a few hundred thousand which will basically pay their legal fees for that time wasted.

I work in the medical field and cant even begin to talk about what happens. Although I realize there are serious mistakes that warrant a suit there are a million to that one that dont. Anywhere from suing a doctor because your child has a genetic problem to suing a city because you broke your leg playing baseball on their field. You see this stuff in magazines and such but I wonder how much really ever gets rewarded. If the numbers are high...well that makes me even more sick....grrrrr lol this is why I try my best to stay out of politics as such.

Well, okay, maybe it's not that simple. If the injury was made WORSE by something that Ford did, then the plaintiff could still recover against Ford even though the driver caused the accident. I don't know, maybe that's what happened here. If so, then it's not as bad as it initially sounds; if not, then the jury was dead wrong.

Don't you assume the Plaintiff's counsel proved Ford exacerbated the injuries? Specifically, "the guy died" and i'd assume experts would have certainly testified based upon the injuries that caused the actual death and the physical evidence of the rollover, that he would have survived had the truck not rolled over.

Further, since Ford had prior knowledge that this "particular" product had a propensity to roll over, more so than other vehicles in its class, and chose not to recall it, notice of the unsafe condition was clearly established.

I wonder what percentage, it any, of the award was for punitive damages given Ford's wanton disregard for the decedent's safety.

bunch of bold stuff for basilisk4

well if i can't sue fast food for making me fat, or burning my lip on hot coffee, i can only revert to a Larry the Cable Guy quote...

"can i sue hustler magazine for givin my wrist carpal tunnel?"

grrrrr lol this is why I try my best to stay out of politics as such.

as well you should....law and politics require some nous.