Ford ordered to pay $2.5B for super duty crushed roof

[akirby]

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/ford-ordered-pay-25b-georgia-family-after-couple-killed-rollover-crash/ZWPLZ3UO35G5LLLTK5OSOR6HMA/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem_manual&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3U-M8ODUSY2NUwEB-Ztqq2BpcbTc4TJB0S_Qu-7VDTK1U1G18_1LVPkoc_aem_Cmxym6asJdX85o6r9IZAxQ#
 

Jury orders Ford to pay 2.5B to family of a couple who wrecked their 2015 F250 resulting in death from the roof collapsing.

 

They left the road and hit a drainage culvert launching the vehicle 81 feet in the air.  Nothing short of a roll cage would have helped in that case.

 

This is almost as stupid as the award for the Explorer guy driving drunk with no seatbelts leaving the road, overcorrecting and rolling it, being ejected and killed.  They argued Ford should have used safety glass which would have kept him inside the vehicle.  
 

We desperately need tort reform.  These verdicts and awards are outrageous.

[rmc523]

Sounds absurd.  Billion with a B??

 

if the vehicle met crash standards at the time, I don’t understand how the company is liable in an extreme case like this….

[Bob Rosadini]

17 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

Sounds absurd.  Billion with a B??

 

if the vehicle met crash standards at the time, I don’t understand how the company is liable in an extreme case like this….

Like Kirby said..we need reforms.  Plus fewer lawyers...in Boston TV market bulk of spot ads?...Ambulance chasing lawyers!

Also sad commentary on attitude of so many people..."hey sue em-what do you have to lose?"

[DeluxeStang]

2 hours ago, akirby said:

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/ford-ordered-pay-25b-georgia-family-after-couple-killed-rollover-crash/ZWPLZ3UO35G5LLLTK5OSOR6HMA/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem_manual&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3U-M8ODUSY2NUwEB-Ztqq2BpcbTc4TJB0S_Qu-7VDTK1U1G18_1LVPkoc_aem_Cmxym6asJdX85o6r9IZAxQ#
 

Jury orders Ford to pay 2.5B to family of a couple who wrecked their 2015 F250 resulting in death from the roof collapsing.

 

They left the road and hit a drainage culvert launching the vehicle 81 feet in the air.  Nothing short of a roll cage would have helped in that case.

 

This is almost as stupid as the award for the Explorer guy driving drunk with no seatbelts leaving the road, overcorrecting and rolling it, being ejected and killed.  They argued Ford should have used safety glass which would have kept him inside the vehicle.  
 

We desperately need tort reform.  These verdicts and awards are outrageous.

Those same attorneys would sue Ford if the side glass was stronger, citing how someone couldn't break the glass to get out under distress. You can't win with these people. 

[akirby]

1 hour ago, rmc523 said:

Sounds absurd.  Billion with a B??

 

if the vehicle met crash standards at the time, I don’t understand how the company is liable in an extreme case like this….

Because juries are stupid.  Attorneys argue that Ford should have and could have made the roof stronger.  They feel sorry for the plaintiffs and refuse to hold them accountable for causing the accident in the first place.

 

I can understand if it was a known flaw that caused death or injury in an otherwise minor accident but there is only so much you can do when a vehicle is airborne.

[Rick73]

They’ll never collect anything close to that.  Only winners are attorneys on both sides.

[Chrisgb]

With sensational awards in general, all we ever read about are the outrageous initial settlement, never about the appeals and motions to block. But as we here sit at arm's length from the trial, it is hard, impossible perhaps, to imagine what could have persuaded a majority of the jurors to think that this was a fair and just amount to award.

 

Cap all personal injury lawsuits at $1 million plus any ongoing medical expenses, and one appeal within the first year, after that, council may file appeals on behalf of the plaintiff pro bono. So if council really cares...

 

 

[akirby]

Quote

The release says, “The roofs on all 1999-2016 “Super Duty” trucks are indisputably weak.” The release claims those trucks have a strength-to-weight rating (SWR) of 1.1 when the minimum SWR rating to get a “good” roof strength rating from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is 4.0. “Ford contended that the roofs on the 1999-2016 ‘Super Duty’ trucks are ‘absolutely safe’ and there was nothing wrong with them,” the release says. The release says, “Ford also contended, as it has for decades, that roof strength doesn’t matter — that there is no ‘causal relationship’ between roof strength and injuries in rollover wrecks.” The release also states, “That argument has been rejected by the federal government agency charged with automotive safety, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), and by the IIHS.”

So it’s weak based on IIHS made up standards which probably change every year.

[twintornados]

5 hours ago, Bob Rosadini said:

Like Kirby said..we need reforms.  Plus fewer lawyers...in Boston TV market bulk of spot ads?...Ambulance chasing lawyers!

 

This is an actual commercial playing in my area...
 

 

[7Mary3]

First off, I don't necessarily agree with the amount of the awards in some of these cases, and no question any situation with a vehicle flying 81 feet through the air will not end well, regardless of the circumstances.  However, the roof strength of the Super Duty truck has been questioned almost since the vehicle was introduced back in 1999, and there has been a number (some claim more than 200) of lawsuits against Ford alleging the Super Duty roof poses a danger in roll-over accidents.  Lawyers representing the plaintiffs claim that Ford downgraded material or removed structural members of the Super Duty roofs to save weight and cost, and in addition allege Ford lobbied the N.H.T.S.A. against roll-over/roof crush standards for certain light trucks.  If these lawyers can prove that Ford knew their weight and cost cutting design changes made the Super Duty more prone to roof failure and tried to stop the adoption of roof crush standards for applicable light trucks Ford could be in some serious trouble. 

[Bob Rosadini]

On 2/15/2025 at 5:18 PM, twintornados said:

 

This is an actual commercial playing in my area...
 

 

Hah- sick

[SoonerLS]

 

[Rick73]

IMO too much is being made of the 81 feet in the air unless there’s more to it than has been reported in the news.  A vehicle at highway speeds would not have to go all that high off the ground to travel 81 feet horizontally.  I think the likely issue Is that in some accidents it’s easy to exceed safety standards.  I would not blame manufacturers unless it was a blatant design error.  In any case the judgment amount is absurd because if value of a human life is estimated at nearly one billion dollars, and enforced, it would send standard of living for everyone back to dark ages. 

[akirby]

It’s hard to get a 3 ton truck to fly 81 feet.  This wasn’t a Honda civic.  It doesn’t imply speeding but it’s safe to say she wasn’t driving 45 mph either.

 

The majority of the $2.5B is punitive because the jury thinks Ford was intentionally negligent by reducing roof strength.  In that case the absurd amount is calculated to be corporate punishment commensurate with their profits.

 

 

[tbone]

I anticipate this award will be overturned on appeal. It is sad and unfortunate someone has died, but it certainly does not appear to be reasonable and commensurate with the anticipated earnings associated with the individual or realistic pain and suffering.  
 

The question is did Ford meet the standards set forth by the government for construction of the vehicle?  Any manufacturer can build something to withstand just about any kind of accident, but is it realistic to build to that kind of standard?   

[7Mary3]

I doubt it will be overturned, but it may be substantially reduced.  At least some of the lawsuits have been consolidated into a class action.  There was also a $1.7B suit over a crash that happened back in 2014, I am not sure if it was appealed.  

[akirby]

9 hours ago, tbone said:

I anticipate this award will be overturned on appeal. It is sad and unfortunate someone has died, but it certainly does not appear to be reasonable and commensurate with the anticipated earnings associated with the individual or realistic pain and suffering.  
 

The question is did Ford meet the standards set forth by the government for construction of the vehicle?  Any manufacturer can build something to withstand just about any kind of accident, but is it realistic to build to that kind of standard?   

There are no roof strength standards for super duty trucks which to me is part of the problem.  If there were then Ford could use that defense.  But as Lehto points out that’s not always a successful defense since juries view that as the bare minimum and usually hold the mfrs to even higher standards (which makes no sense to me - if the standard is too low then raise the standard otherwise why even have a standard?).

[fuzzymoomoo]

31 minutes ago, akirby said:

(which makes no sense to me - if the standard is too low then raise the standard otherwise why even have a standard?).

Like you said a few posts ago, juries are stupid. 

[Sherminator98]

1 hour ago, fuzzymoomoo said:

Like you said a few posts ago, juries are stupid. 

Not to mention lawyers pick the stupid ones from the available pool too. 

[Flying68]

11 hours ago, 7Mary3 said:

I doubt it will be overturned, but it may be substantially reduced.  At least some of the lawsuits have been consolidated into a class action.  There was also a $1.7B suit over a crash that happened back in 2014, I am not sure if it was appealed.  

That was vacated by the court of appeals in Georgia and sent back for a new trial in November due to the various errors (limits on testimony and evidence) and some of the sanctions imposed by the trial court.  I don't know if that order was appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court or not.

[7Mary3]

3 hours ago, akirby said:

There are no roof strength standards for super duty trucks which to me is part of the problem.  If there were then Ford could use that defense.  But as Lehto points out that’s not always a successful defense since juries view that as the bare minimum and usually hold the mfrs to even higher standards (which makes no sense to me - if the standard is too low then raise the standard otherwise why even have a standard?).

 

Thanks for that bit of information, I seem to remember reading that there were no roof strength standards in 1999 when the Super Duty was introduced.  I had heard (but unable to verify as yet) that GM and Chrysler strengthened the roofs of their trucks in subsequent redesigns in the mid-2000's in anticipation of new roof standards from the N.H.T.S.A..  The cab of the 2017 Super Duty is substantially stronger than the 1999-2016 cab despite it being manufactured out of aluminum.

 

I agree, what is the point of a standard if the courts can require performance that exceeds a given standard?

[SoonerLS]

56 minutes ago, 7Mary3 said:

The cab of the 2017 Super Duty is substantially stronger than the 1999-2016 cab despite it being manufactured out of aluminum.

IIRC, that’s when the Super Duty started sharing the F-150’s cab structure, which had been meeting rollover and crash protection standards since 2009. 

[Captainp4]

On 2/15/2025 at 5:18 PM, twintornados said:

 

This is an actual commercial playing in my area...
 

 

This seems like who is currently suing me/my company, obvious insurance fraud case and my lawyers are dumbfounded that anyone would pick up the case. Hoping it doesn't make it to court to waste more of my time on it, but at least it's only 30k and not 2.5B 🤣 Won't go into any more detail with it being an open case, but this video made me laugh about it and this thread made me realize it could be way worse.

[akirby]

1 hour ago, Captainp4 said:

This seems like who is currently suing me/my company, obvious insurance fraud case and my lawyers are dumbfounded that anyone would pick up the case. Hoping it doesn't make it to court to waste more of my time on it, but at least it's only 30k and not 2.5B 🤣 Won't go into any more detail with it being an open case, but this video made me laugh about it and this thread made me realize it could be way worse.

People always seem to think whatever an attorney says is gospel but I like to point out that on average lawyers lose 50% of their cases…..

[SoonerLS]

3 hours ago, Captainp4 said:

This seems like who is currently suing me/my company, obvious insurance fraud case and my lawyers are dumbfounded that anyone would pick up the case. Hoping it doesn't make it to court to waste more of my time on it, but at least it's only 30k and not 2.5B 🤣 Won't go into any more detail with it being an open case, but this video made me laugh about it and this thread made me realize it could be way worse.

You ought to look up Steve Lehto’s “Crazy Town” miniseries on his YouTube channel. Lehto had been the successful plaintiff’s attorney in a civil case, and the defendant later tried to sue him to recover what he’d lost. Despite the fact that the suit was frivolous and there was no legal way for him to recover what he sought, he still found an attorney dumb enough to file it.