1999-2016 Super Duty Cab Issue

[7Mary3]

I have heard rumblings about this issue for some time, looks like it might be coming to a head:

 

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/ford-dealt-a-huge-blow?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

[Bob Rosadini]

On 8/22/2022 at 3:56 PM, 7Mary3 said:

I have heard rumblings about this issue for some time, looks like it might be coming to a head:

 

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/ford-dealt-a-huge-blow?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

7M- I can't believe the number of fatalities associated with this and that it was not more of a high visibility issue given number of trucks on road.

And I can't believe given that number of fatals, the Feds didn't jump on this BEFORE the huge settlement put it into spotlight.

And there was no safety standard in place that covered cab "crushability"?  Like vehicles 

are not known to occasionally end up with the "dirty side up"??

[7Mary3]

I have heard rumors that there has been a number of roll-over/roof failure accidents with Super Duty trucks and many have been settled out of court.  I know at some point the Super Duty cab rear window went to a bonded design, which can add significant strength but no idea if that was a response to a roof crush issue.  Seems to me there was also some talk about a 'smoking gun', a roof or windshield header that possibly was in the original design but omitted at some point.  If true I am sure it will come out.

 

I think the NHTSA has had roof strength standards for light trucks for some time, and within the last few years the standards were made significantly more stringent.  That's the reason for the massive 'A' pillars in truck cabs these days.  

[SoonerLS]

IIRC, the first roll-over safety standards for light trucks started being enforced around 2010--compliance with those standards was baked into the redesign for the '09 F-150 (it's one of the reasons I was looking for an '09 or newer F-150 when I bought my '13).

 

Steve Lehto did a video on this a little while back. As he says, verdicts like this usually make the news twice: first, when it happens, and again when the appeals court knocks it down.

 

 

[kyle]

I live in the county where this verdict happened and coincidentally, after my beer league hockey game Sunday night, one of my players is an attorney and knows this guy. Discussion kept going on about how long this has been going on and what a potential nightmare for Ford this could be. Never good publicity. 

[akirby]

Nobody today wants any personal accountability and personal I jury lawsuits are the new lottery.  In a wreck?  Get a check!  In an accident with a semi?  They have deep pockets!  Actual PI lawyer commercials.  Scumbags.

[jasonj80]

Safety at Ford wasn't really taken into consideration until IIHS started with their crash and roof testing and blasting it on all forms of media, yes there were airbags and such but structure management wasn't really applied in the same way it was at Volvo/MB at the time. Ford took notice and immediately implemented changes as they were smart in realizing that being on Dateline (which at the time was a top 10 most watched show) and showed catastrophic injury that would hurt your sales.  The super-duty was always above a weight class of being tested so there was no reason for anyone to fix it. Even now Ford (and other OEM's) skips on even cheap mundane safety equipment in the name of cost savings. If it isn't mandated or cause bad PR don't worry about it. Some of this legal and cost mentality stems from the Honda Airbag lawsuit where OEM can't be held responsible for a vehicle not having certain equipment. 

 

Dodge and GM vehicles of the same age and class do the same thing, there are just way more Ford super duty of that time frame on the road so the numbers are much much higher. It is like the late 90's Explorer, it was safer than the Blazer, Cherokee and 4 runner but there was so many more of them it made a larger impact. 

Until Congress gets involved with these lawsuit judgements they will continue to happen. Tort reform needs to happen, but Congress will never touch it. So companies just raise prices to cover it. 

[7Mary3]

4 hours ago, kyle said:

I live in the county where this verdict happened and coincidentally, after my beer league hockey game Sunday night, one of my players is an attorney and knows this guy. Discussion kept going on about how long this has been going on and what a potential nightmare for Ford this could be. Never good publicity. 

 

That's just it.  While there is no question that personal injury lawsuits have become a big windfall for plaintifs and attorneys, this case is worrisome for Ford considering the number of accidents and the number of trucks that may have potentially weak cabs.  I remember first hearing about Super Duty cabs collapsing in roll-overs many years ago, which is why this particular case caught my attention.  In any event, these trucks will be scutinized just like the 1973-1987 GM trucks with their 'side saddle' fuel tanks.

 

I wonder if a 'smoking gun' is discovered and Ford is proven to be liable for these accidents it may cause them to spin off 'Ford Blue' to shield 'Ford E'.

[7Mary3]

38 minutes ago, jasonj80 said:

The super-duty was always above a weight class of being tested so there was no reason for anyone to fix it......  

 

Dodge and GM vehicles of the same age and class do the same thing, there are just way more Ford super duty of that time frame on the road so the numbers are much much higher.  
 

 

I don't know about that.  Remember that GM and Ram used the same cab on both of their light and heavy duty full size pickups.  It's probably safe to say that whatever cab/roof strength standards were required of light duty trucks were inherited by the heavier GM and Ram trucks that used the same cab.   

 

Dateline lost a lot of credability after the '75-'87 pickup scandal, but you made a good point about negative publicity.

Edited August 31, 2022 by 7Mary3

[rperez817]

24 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

I wonder if a 'smoking gun' is discovered and Ford is proven to be liable for these accidents it may cause them to spin off 'Ford Blue' to shield 'Ford E'.

 

Excellent point 7Mary3, that is a distinct possibility. Ford Blue is already at risk for lawsuits for past carbon emissions and pollution generated by ICE. Given the outcome of the Gwinnett County, Georgia case 16-C-04179-S2 HILL VS FORD MOTOR CO ET AL mentioned in your original post, should Ford's appeal fail it's even more likely that a Blue division spin-off may be coming within the next few years.

[BenRM]

29 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

 

I don't know about that.  Remember that GM and Ram used the same cab on both of their light and heavy duty full size pickups.  It's probably safe to say that whatever cab/roof strength standards were required of light duty trucks were inherited by the heavier GM and Ram trucks that used the same cab.   

 

Dateline lost a lot of credability after the '75-'87 pickup scandal, but you made a good point about negative publicity.

You have a point with the light duty having the same cab on dodge and gm, but it's typical for a super duty to weigh around 1000lbs more than an f150, this is likely the same for the 1500's vs the 2500's. Does the 1500 cab hold up the same with another 1000lbs trying to crush it?

[7Mary3]

3 hours ago, rperez817 said:

 

Excellent point 7Mary3, that is a distinct possibility. Ford Blue is already at risk for lawsuits for past carbon emissions and pollution generated by ICE. Given the outcome of the Gwinnett County, Georgia case 16-C-04179-S2 HILL VS FORD MOTOR CO ET AL mentioned in your original post, should Ford's appeal fail it's even more likely that a Blue division spin-off may be coming within the next few years.

 

Those potential carbon emissions lawsuits are the wet dream of a bunch of product liability lawyers, I doubt anything will ever come from them.  Where would they end?  Potentially all energy companies, BBQ manufacturers, home appliance manufacturers, construction/agricultural equipment manufacturers, asphalt paving companies, restaurants, roofing contractors, railroads, aircraft manufacturers and airlines, marine, even funeral homes could be potentially liable. 

 

My guess is Ford will get a substantially reduced judgement on appeal, but this could kick the door open for a lot of similar lawsuits.  I wonder how many Super Duty rollover cases were settled out of court?

 

    

[SoonerLS]

6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

That's just it.  While there is no question that personal injury lawsuits have become a big windfall for plaintifs and attorneys, this case is worrisome for Ford considering the number of accidents and the number of trucks that may have potentially weak cabs.

The actual damages awarded to the plaintiff were in the millions. The $1.7 billion was in punitive damages; although the plaintiff and plaintiffs' attorneys will get part of that money, the state of Georgia gets the bulk of it (75%), per Steve Lehto's video.

 

...that is, assuming that it survives contact with the appellate courts.

[SoonerLS]

6 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

In any event, these trucks will be scutinized just like the 1973-1987 GM trucks with their 'side saddle' fuel tanks.

It has been a couple of weeks since I watched it, so I may be conflating videos, but I'm pretty sure Steve Lehto said that, according to the evidence from the trial, there had been fewer than 100 deaths due to roll-over accidents in the Super Duties over the last 20 years. 

[SoonerLS]

Ford asks court to throw out $1.7 billion verdict 

 

 

[7Mary3]

Wall Street Journal says the judgement may be reduced, but Ford will probably not get a new trial.

[Captainp4]

I don't understand how they could lose if the cab met all safety standards for when it was produced? Was Ford hiding something or ??

[akirby]

2 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

I don't understand how they could lose if the cab met all safety standards for when it was produced? Was Ford hiding something or ??

Because logic and common sense don’t matter when juries see companies with deep pockets and big insurance policies.  They’ll claim that Ford could have made the roof safer but chose not to.

 

Its almost as bad as the Explorer driven by a drunk driver, left the road, came back on the road, rolled over and ejected the occupants who weren’t wearing seatbelts.  The family of the driver sued Ford for not using laminated safety glass on the side windows which would have kept the occupants in the vehicle.  And they won, at least initially.  Utterly ridiculous.

[Captainp4]

44 minutes ago, akirby said:

Because logic and common sense don’t matter when juries see companies with deep pockets and big insurance policies.  They’ll claim that Ford could have made the roof safer but chose not to.

 

Its almost as bad as the Explorer driven by a drunk driver, left the road, came back on the road, rolled over and ejected the occupants who weren’t wearing seatbelts.  The family of the driver sued Ford for not using laminated safety glass on the side windows which would have kept the occupants in the vehicle.  And they won, at least initially.  Utterly ridiculous.

sounds like these people had the wrong load range tires on the truck and weren't wearing their seatbelts according to the video, wild times we live in

[SoonerLS]

 

[7Mary3]

Not liking this.  Sounds like the plantiffs found some things during discovery.  

 

Speaking of loss-of-value due to lawsuit, it's ironic that the plantiffs tried to push for that during the 1973-1987 GM truck side saddle gas tank trial, but those trucks are now worth more then they were in the early 90's.

[Joe771476]

And you mean to tell me that every other vehicle would not experience a crushed roof in a rollover?  Bulloney!  If it met Fed standards, there are no worries.

[akirby]

44 minutes ago, Joe771476 said:

And you mean to tell me that every other vehicle would not experience a crushed roof in a rollover?  Bulloney!  If it met Fed standards, there are no worries.

What others did or didn’t do is irrelevant in this kind of case.  They’re basically saying Ford knew the roof wasn’t strong enough and could have made it stronger (which they actually did a few years ago).  And that’s correct, but it shouldn’t create a liability.  Too many juries feel sorry for the plaintiffs and know that these companies have deep pockets.

[atomcat68]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

What others did or didn’t do is irrelevant in this kind of case.  They’re basically saying Ford knew the roof wasn’t strong enough and could have made it stronger (which they actually did a few years ago).  And that’s correct, but it shouldn’t create a liability.  Too many juries feel sorry for the plaintiffs and know that these companies have deep pockets.

I feel that this could also lead to a slippery slope that when an automaker makes an improvement on a product, the courts can argue that that is an admission that the old one was defective. Court cases also have the power to set a precedent. 

[akirby]

37 minutes ago, atomcat68 said:

I feel that this could also lead to a slippery slope that when an automaker makes an improvement on a product, the courts can argue that that is an admission that the old one was defective. Court cases also have the power to set a precedent. 

We’re already there.  Ford lost a lawsuit a few years ago because they didn’t use laminated glass in the doors of an Explorer where the driver was drunk, not wearing a seatbelt, ran off the road, overcorrected and flipped.  Ejected and killed most of the occupants.  Plaintiffs argued the laminated glass would have kept him in the vehicle.  Instead of saying the driver was 100% responsible the jury found Ford partially at fault.  Utterly ridiculous but Juries are not always logical.