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 ***** 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

 

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.

 

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 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)

 

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 ***** into the device. The jury felt that the manufacturer had failed to warn the plaintiff that inserting his ***** 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.

 

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.

 

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?"

 

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