P71_CrownVic Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 SAN DIEGO - A California appeals court said a woman who was paralyzed after her Ford Explorer rolled over is entitled to $82.6 million in damages from the automaker. The 4th District Court of Appeal was asked by the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case after Ford Motor Co. (nyse: F - news - people ) appealed the award, arguing that it was being punished even though the design of the vehicle met federal safety standards. Benetta Buell-Wilson was driving on an interstate east of San Diego in January 2002 when she swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled 4 1/2 times. The mother of two was paralyzed from the waist down when the roof collapsed on her neck, severing her spine. A jury initially awarded Buell-Wilson $369 million, including $246 million in punitive damages but courts twice cut the size of the award. The $82.6 million approved by the appeals court Monday includes punitive damages of $55 million. The Supreme Court wanted the appeals court to determine if its ruling was in line with an earlier Supreme Court decision overturning a $79.5 million punitive damages award in a tobacco case. Gee...who would have thought that making a snap lane change at freeway speeds will make a SUV roll over. I thought all SUVs handled like little fucking sports cars. I got news for this dumb broad...82.6 million won't fix her stupid. Forbes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 But we are never responsible for our actions, especially when we are terribly injured! It's always someone elses fault! </sarcasm> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 (edited) But we are never responsible for our actions, especially when we are terribly injured! It's always someone elses fault! </sarcasm> Exactly...just like the dumb woman here in MN that is suing numerous casinos out east because, 'they didn't do enough to stop me from ruining my life by gambling'. Edited March 11, 2008 by P71_CrownVic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonj80 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 And the Jury's take sympathy with them. They are just as dumb as the person in the accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I got news for this dumb broad...82.6 million won't fix her stupid. Making fun of a cripple. Nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 And the Jury's take sympathy with them. They are just as dumb as the person in the accident. X2!! Making fun of a cripple. Nice. So she is smart for making a snap lane change on the freeway and rolling her SUV? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 So she is smart for making a snap lane change on the freeway and rolling her SUV? This isn't about HER. It's about you. What you did was quite crass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 11, 2008 Author Share Posted March 11, 2008 This isn't about HER. It's about you. What you did was quite crass. No...what SHE did was quite crass. She rolled her SUV because of her stupidity...then sure the manufacturer because of her mistake. Oh well...that's Commiefornia for ya. I cannot believe that the Jury awarded her 370 million to begin with. They are just as stupid as the driver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 X2!! So she is smart for making a snap lane change on the freeway and rolling her SUV? apparently you can't read. she got the award because the roof collapsed. THAT is the nature of her injury and the jury's judgement. Ford's argument was that the roof structure was within gov't regs. Her lawyers argued that regs didn't matter. Ford designed a roof that would collapse in a rollover. Not saying I agree with it, but learn to friggin' read troll before you post anymore of your stupid trollish babble. Good God you must be in a Union to hang onto your job with no brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P71_CrownVic Posted March 12, 2008 Author Share Posted March 12, 2008 apparently you can't read. she got the award because the roof collapsed. THAT is the nature of her injury and the jury's judgement. Ford's argument was that the roof structure was within gov't regs. Her lawyers argued that regs didn't matter. Ford designed a roof that would collapse in a rollover. Not saying I agree with it, but learn to friggin' read troll before you post anymore of your stupid trollish babble. Good God you must be in a Union to hang onto your job with no brain. I love it...I am fully on Ford's side...and I still get shit. You :cheerleader: are defective. Anyway...would the roof have collapsed if she hadn't made a snap lane change in a vehicle that is tippy and has a high center of gravity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 I love it...I am fully on Ford's side...and I still get shit. From my standpoint, it's because you're still a jerk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Automakers are responsible for engineering a product that can safely operate under real world conditions. There is substantial case law in this matter which makes the Explorer and easy and legitimate target. Don't feel bad for Ford, the Explorers between 1995 and 2001 do not deserve to be defended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 (edited) Making fun of a cripple. Nice. Edited March 12, 2008 by one2gamble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Donuts? I said no ethnic food! You call this Postum? You call this a Tax Return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarShark Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 1) How much could this potentially cost Ford when it's all said and done? 2) What will this mean for future roof crush legislation? I mean, how much tougher will they get? 3) If following the national regs doesn't protect you from a costly lawsuit (like I thought it did), what can? 4) I can see nearly all automakers fitting their SUVs/CUVs/Crossovers with stability control and tire pressure monitors ASAP if they aren't already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 What cost Ford on this was the massive paper trail of engineers objecting to the weakening of the roof in the midcycle update. The roof structure was noticeably weaker on the '97-'02 models, and this was done deliberately, and =that's= what cost Ford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarShark Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 What cost Ford on this was the massive paper trail of engineers objecting to the weakening of the roof in the midcycle update. The roof structure was noticeably weaker on the '97-'02 models, and this was done deliberately, and =that's= what cost Ford. What could they have possibly gained by making the roof weaker? Where were the risk assessors and bean counters to put the kibosh on that thinking? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 What could they have possibly gained by making the roof weaker? Where were the risk assessors and bean counters to put the kibosh on that thinking? 1) cost savings. 2) it was felt that since the weaker roof still met applicable safety standards that it was okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarShark Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 1) cost savings.That's kinda what I figured, but while posting I thought to myself 'This was still during the SUV boom. Ford was making a couple thousand in profit from every unit. They wouldn't cut out a couple of bucks worth of metal from the design, right?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 4) I can see nearly all automakers fitting their SUVs/CUVs/Crossovers with stability control and tire pressure monitors ASAP if they aren't already. IIRC, both are going to be mandatory within the next couple of years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 What cost Ford on this was the massive paper trail of engineers objecting to the weakening of the roof in the midcycle update. The roof structure was noticeably weaker on the '97-'02 models, and this was done deliberately, and =that's= what cost Ford. That being said, there needs to be some sanity in the amount being awarded. This driver was not a pitcher for the New York Yankees and wouldn't have made $82 million dollars if she lived 50 lifetimes short of winning the mega lottery. Pain and suffering don't cut it either. All of us pay for these ridiculous jury awards in some way. There needs to be a better system to award fair damages that are within reason. This nonsense needs to stop. It's bakrupting all of us. Ultimately, these inflated numbers are passed on to all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 (edited) That being said, there needs to be some sanity in the amount being awarded. This driver was not a pitcher for the New York Yankees and wouldn't have made $82 million dollars if she lived 50 lifetimes short of winning the mega lottery. Pain and suffering don't cut it either. All of us pay for these ridiculous jury awards in some way. There needs to be a better system to award fair damages that are within reason. This nonsense needs to stop. It's bakrupting all of us. Ultimately, these inflated numbers are passed on to all of us. the bulk of these awards are "punitive" which is the punishment of the defendant and is based on the size of the company. Basically, the bigger you are the more you pay so they feel it in the pocketbook. If this was KIA, the punitive would have been much smaller. If we want a reality check, the courts should not give this to the plaintiff. If she was awarded a few million for pain and suffering etc, then that's what she should get. Anything punitive is essentially a fine and should go back to a "victims of crime" funds or something similar. Edited March 12, 2008 by J-150 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-150 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 From my standpoint, it's because you're still a jerk. the voters have spoken and it is clear that more than one person feels this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 What cost Ford on this was the massive paper trail of engineers objecting to the weakening of the roof in the midcycle update. The roof structure was noticeably weaker on the '97-'02 models, and this was done deliberately, and =that's= what cost Ford. Everytime Ford fails to listen to its own people, it costs them big time. All in the past I know but should serve as a warning to heed their advice engineers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted March 12, 2008 Share Posted March 12, 2008 Everytime Ford fails to listen to its own people, it costs them big time.All in the past I know but should serve as a warning to heed their advice engineers. Somehow, I think the Mull will makes sure this never, ever happens again. If there is still any resistance to his re-organization, it's about to evaporate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.