Ford needs to start acting responsibly

[FordVictim1997]

This is an open letter to all employees of Ford Motors urging you to start taking responsibility for the products you produce. On the night of August 31, 1997, my life was nearly ended when I was struck by a 1990 Mercury Grand Marquis with a cruise control unit known to have possible defects. As soon as the driver started his vehicle, you could hear the engine race wildly. I looked up to see the car fishtailing from its parked position and strike the car ahead of it; I distinctly recall seeing the glow of this car's brake lights (that is what first focused my attention on it for some reason) and thinking that it must be kids who had been drinking and showing off. Since this is about owning responsibility, I will accept my own that evening, as after the Mercury Grand Marquis struck that first car I saw that it was headed for the rear of our vehicle where my friend was seated with her six-year-old son on her lap and I jumped to throw these two to safety. Yes, I put myself in the danger zone that night but two people were not seriously harmed as a result of my actions. I was not so lucky as I was crushed between the two bumpers, drug 170 feet, and then rolled over. Another car was in front of ours and the Mercury pushed our SUV into that and kept going until it finally struck a concrete wall (count them, that is four violent collisions, I was hit during number 2!) When we hit the wall, the Mercury was still going strong and climbed the rear of our SUV, rolling over my left leg and dragging underneath. When all forward motion had ceased I was laying on my back with the right front tire of the Mercury about an inch or two above my face. The engine was still running at full rpm and the rear wheels were still slinging gravel everywhere. From where I lay I could detect a bright red glow from the rear of the vehicle, the kind of glow that comes from brake lights being illuminated. I also noticed that the tire above my face was not moving, as one would expect if the driver had his foot on the brake. I had accepted my fate early on and knew that I was going to die that night; when I finally called out it was not for help but to ensure that everyone else was okay (my son was in the back of the SUV watching this all happen to me.) There was little hope that I would make it to the ER, let alone see another sunrise. The incident crushed my pelvis and both hips, shattered my lower left leg and ripped my left knee apart (I was told later that my left leg was wrapped around my thigh.) I suffered numerous spinal fractures including all five lumbar vertebrae. I suffered a ruptured colon that resulted in the resection of 29cm, and my bladder was ruptured so bad that it was feared it would never heal. Later on it was discovered that my left ureter had been totally transected which resulted in the loss of my left kidney. By all accounts, I am very fortunate to be alive, but given what I have endured since that night I am not so quick to agree with that statement. I spent the next four months undergoing numerous surgeries and lying flat of my back staring at the ceiling while in traction. I was released from the hospital on December 19, 1997, and believe it or not I was back in my classroom teaching mathematics on January 5, 1998. I continued to try to work for the next three years but finally succumbed to the pain. I could have easily demanded a position that was better suited to my limitations, but I just did not feel that it was being fair to the students (I accepted my own responsibility and acted accordingly.) I found it strange that the attorney Ford had speaking for them was more interested in what I had done in the Army than what I could recall of the accident; these questions came up during discovery as well as during the trial. Ford did offer a pre-trial settlement, but their offer came far short of covering my current medical expenses at the time let alone provide for future needs. The jury sided with Ford since I was the only one who could say that I saw brake lights that night. The driver had made the typically expected statement of "I must have stepped on the gas instead of the brakes" and Ford seized that opportunity to shift blame onto this man. I still today feel sorry for that man, as I know in my heart that he did everything he could to minimize the impact that night, yet he still feels somehow responsible for what happened. Since I could no longer work I finally filed for disability which means that now the American taxpayers are footing the bills for injuries that Ford is directly responsible for. I have written numerous letters to Ford's BODs urging them to be men and take affirmative action to see that nothing like this ever happens again. While they have failed to ever respond even once, I did notice that the words William C. Ford espoused in his safety commercials this past year were an exact reading of what I had written in one of my letters to him (this without my permission, can you spell plagiarism Billy?) Despite Ford's own engineers proving that such problems do exist with these units, they continue to place profits before people. I urge everyone at Ford to think about this every time you look at your family and loved ones. As long as these vehicles are allowed to remain in service, your employer is putting people at risk and you are just as much to blame as the top executives. Despite my deep hatred for Ford, I would not wish what I went through on anyone including the top level executives at Ford. I believe that everything happens for a reason, and perhaps the reason I am still alive today is to bring this out in the open. I do not regret my actions of that night nine years ago, but if I had it to do over again I would have likely requested that I be allowed to just die.

[Paul Selby]

Grand Marquis with a cruise control unit known to have possible defects. As soon as the driver started his vehicle, you could hear the engine race wildly.

 

Not trying to be a jerk but the above quote doesn't add up, maybe you can explain. If the engine began to race as soon as it was started why was it put into gear? Never heard of cruise control engaging at start up. Don't get me wrong, Ford has done it's fair share of stupid crap and shifting blame but this doesn't make sense to me.

[bravestar]

I have seen so many times that people blame the gas pedal or brake pedal, haven't heard about the cruise control, when what really happened is that the floor mat was pushed up in to and depressing the gas pedal without the driver being aware of it. That is why the drivers floor mat has a anchor point on it and is almost too small to do any good. If a aftermarket floormat was in that car it may have been wedged into the accelerator.

[OAC_Sparky]

Did the driver not have insurance?

[630land]

I'd say DRIVERS need to be more responsible. If every trial lawyer and 'no accdient is anyone's fault' people had their way, car makers would never be in business.

 

I imagine in the horse and buggy days, some would sue Mother Nature for creating 'wild horses'.

[DTP Body Door Hang]

I had no idea cruise control also put the car into gear. Now that's innovation. Now beat it troll. :blah: :blah: :blah:

[J-150]

let me get this straight.... you jumped in front of a moving car?

 

ANd its someone else's fault?

 

 

Something about your story is fishy.

[TheLemon]

let me get this straight.... you jumped in front of a moving car?

 

ANd its someone else's fault?

Something about your story is fishy.

 

My story also is fishy..... My car smells like a dead fish....

[OAC_Sparky]

My story also is fishy..... My car smells like a dead fish....

If you'd stop getting "lemon juice" all over the back seat it might go away.

 

[partsisparts]

Criuse control does not work under 40 m.p.h.

Why didn' t the driver shut the vehicle off? Why did he put in gear with the engine racing so much?

How come the universal joints not break when the car was dropped into gear at full throttle?

What do you mean we as employees have to start taking responsibilty for the cars we build. We were not driving the car that hit you. We are not responsible for what happened to you. It seems to me you are speculating about the cruise control, the brake lights, and who knows what else. You said at the trial the driver claimed responsiblity. What do you want us to do? Normally, I would feel bad for you, but your story smells of bull shit.

Edited December 20, 2006 by partsisparts

[Mark B. Morrow]

Since I am probably the only one on BON who has actually tried a Products Liability case as a Plaintiff's attorney, I may have some insight into the process. In order to have a successful case against a manufacturer, a Plaintiff must establish by that the product in question was defective when it left the manufacturer's hands due to a defect in design or in manufacture which rendered the product unsafe for its intended or forseeable use.

 

Proof of the defect requires expert testimony and the burden is on the Plaintiff to establish the existence of the defect by a mere preponderence of the evidence. Since most states' laws are based on Strict Liability the product is on trial not the user. The manufacturer is held responsible for the safety of its products as a matter of public policy since the manufacturer profits fron the sale of the product and controls the process by which it is designed and built. in addition, the manufacturer is able to spread the risk across a great number of products whereas the buyer is not.

 

Negligence of the user is not an issue. Only intent of the user is relevant. For instance, if the user intends to injure himself or others, there is no liability on the manufacturer or seller of the product. Some products are inherently dangerous such as knives. Their intended purpose is to cut and the danger is obvious to the user. Voluntary assumption of a known risk is a defense. There is no manufacturer's liability for cutting your fingers when using a knife.

 

In Fordvictim 1997's case, the vehicle in question alledgedly suffered a failure of the cruise control which caused the vehicle to careen out of control of the driver despite application of the brakes. I would assume that the vehicle was examined by Plaintiff's experts and Ford's experts. If not, the case would likely have been dismissed at the pre-trial level since Plaintiff would not have been able to sustain his burden of pursuasion. In my experience, it is unlikely that the cruise control would engage on its own at low speed. it is even more unlikely that the acceleration would override application of the brakes. You can try flooring the gas while applying the brake. The car won't move much less careen out of control.

 

In Fordvictim 1997's case. the driver admitted that he probably hit the gas instead of the brake. In most cases, that would be game, set and match before a jury. Fordvictim had a trial before a jury and lost. That is always a possible outcome of our systemof justice. Sometimes good cases lose and poor cases win. The risk of being a Plaintiff's lawyer is that if you lose you get nothing for your work and generally don't get reimbursed for your costs. The cost of putting on a Products Liability trial can easily run into tens of thousands of dollars and in many cases well over $100k with experts, depositions, document production, securing the product in question, etc. This case would have been complicated by the fact that the accident in question happened several years after the car was sold. This fact opens the possibility that the car was altered after production.

 

In short, the accident may have been due to driver error and not Ford's fault at all. The driver admitted as much. If so, it is simply not Ford's responsibility.

 

My story also is fishy..... My car smells like a dead fish....

 

Once again you have managed to add nothing of value to the discussion. Congratulations!

[xr7g428]

Any one can very quickly evaluate the facts. Try your own simple test:

 

Put your foot on the brake. Put the car in drive, and try to move the vehicle by applying the gas. At best, you will spin the tires, but the car will remain stationary.

 

Even if the car is moving, the brakes are more powerful than the engine. Even in a moving vehicle, with the accelerator floored, the brakes will stop the vehicle.

 

For a vehicle to behave in the manner described there are two possible explanations: 1 Driver error. 2. Simultaneous failures of brakes, transmission, cruise control, all electronic and mechanical interlock devices, Note failure denotes not only that some items fail to operate, it requires some items to perform new functions outside of original design parameters ie, cruise control brake interlock must fail while cruise control system engages while vehicle is below 40 MPH and not in gear, further cruise must further initiate the accel function to maximum speed with greater than typical throttle pressure.

 

So which seems most likely? Even 60 minutes got busted trying to sell this story...

[OAC_Sparky]

If this person did put himself in danger to save another, he is a hero. Unfortunately, heroism doesn't guarantee you a victory in court without proof.

 

Ford offered him a settlement, he took the risk of going for more, and lost.

 

Was the question ever answered, did the driver have insurance?

[J-150]

In Fordvictim 1997's case. the driver admitted that he probably hit the gas instead of the brake.

 

 

So given this... this guy goes after Ford.

 

Of course. The ones with the deep pockets.

 

So this was really a money play all along, wasn't it? It has nothing to do with UAW, quality of Ford product or even if something was really wrong. Dude just wants a payday.

[bgillette]

If you saw brake lights and you watched it pull away how did it come back and hit you? CC doesn't put cars into gear and doesn't engage under 40mph. Jumping into danger to save someone is admirable but you knew the risks of putting yourself in that position. How is this Ford's fault? Do you think Mr. Ford reads all of the mail he gets from people every day? Too many unanswered questions and holes in the story for me. Were you turned down for a job and trying to get back at someone?

[hoss96racing]

If you'd stop getting "lemon juice" all over the back seat it might go away.

 

unfortunatly the smell won't go away as long as his woman is in the car, no matter what they are doing...

 

then again... maybe there isn't a woman... he is obviously fantasizing about bill and mark often... :banmolest:

Edited December 20, 2006 by hoss96racing

[WingBender]

When all forward motion had ceased I was laying on my back with the right front tire of the Mercury about an inch or two above my face. The engine was still running at full rpm and the rear wheels were still slinging gravel everywhere. From where I lay I could detect a bright red glow from the rear of the vehicle, the kind of glow that comes from brake lights being illuminated.

So you could see that the brake lights were on from your vantage point lying under the front of the car? You lose credibility right there.

 

Why not just accept the driver's testimony that he had his foot on the wrong pedal. Quit trying to blame Ford for your injuries, stop being so bitter about your lot, and move on with your life.

[Roadrunner]

t is even more unlikely that the acceleration would override application of the brakes. You can try flooring the gas while applying the brake. The car won't move much less careen out of control.

 

This is true on many cars. I've experienced playing around with a couple of cars, though, where gassing it with just the brakes on doesn't keep the car from moving. It will fight its way forward. I need both the brake and the e-brake to hold the car steady.

 

Then just drop the e-brake and lift off the brake quickly and you sometimes get wheelspin.

 

My post doesn't correlate at all with FordVictim's comments; I'm just bringing some fair information to the table.

[J-150]

This is true on many cars. I've experienced playing around with a couple of cars, though, where gassing it with just the brakes on doesn't keep the car from moving. It will fight its way forward. I need both the brake and the e-brake to hold the car steady.

 

Then just drop the e-brake and lift off the brake quickly and you sometimes get wheelspin.

 

My post doesn't correlate at all with FordVictim's comments; I'm just bringing some fair information to the table.

 

 

because of some stupid Audi owners in the 80s... all cars now have brakes that can hold the car while at full throttle. There is some exceptions where there are super cars with 500 hp... but on a Merc? doubt it.

[FordVictim1997]

Not trying to be a jerk but the above quote doesn't add up, maybe you can explain. If the engine began to race as soon as it was started why was it put into gear? Never heard of cruise control engaging at start up. Don't get me wrong, Ford has done it's fair share of stupid crap and shifting blame but this doesn't make sense to me.

 

As it was explained to me, that unit had a constsnt source of power feeding it; as soon as the ingnition switch was turned, the cruise control had power. The problem resulted from degradation of the unit, which over time would allow weak errent impulses to trigger the unit. Yes, Ford engineers did test this and show that it was indeed possible (with holding that evidence in earlier trials led to two cases that I know of being reopened.) As for why he put the car in gear I have no idea. We were not allowed to argue that the car had no lockout installed on the transmission which would have necessitated the driver having the brake engaged prior to shifting out of park (Ford's lawyers seemed to want to argue everything exceopt the pertinent facts of the case.) I was standing by the side of our vehicle when everything first started to happen; I had bent down out of the wind to light a smoke and when I looked up I saw the car fishtailing and noticed his brake lights, thinking at first it must be some young kids out drinking and showing off. The car struck the vehicle in front of it, bounced off and then came in our direction. I don't really remember a lot of the in between details other than knowing I was about to die and hoping that everyone else was okay. When all motion ceased I was laying on my back on the ground with the car's right front tire an inch or so above my face. I could hear the engine still going full force, hear the rear tires still spinning and slinging gravel, and noticed a very bright red glow freom the rear. The tire above my face was not impeded by any damaged metal (e.g. bent in front quarter panel) so I would think it would have been spinning had the driver not had his foot on the brake.

 

I have seen so many times that people blame the gas pedal or brake pedal, haven't heard about the cruise control, when what really happened is that the floor mat was pushed up in to and depressing the gas pedal without the driver being aware of it. That is why the drivers floor mat has a anchor point on it and is almost too small to do any good. If a aftermarket floormat was in that car it may have been wedged into the accelerator.

 

Funny you should bring this up as Ford has been fighting to keep a State Trooper in VA from testifying in regards to this very line of reasoning. This individual, trained in high speed defensive driving, experienced a failure of the cruise control unit in his wife's car as he was moving it in his driveway. His first instincts told him that eother his foot was on the gas or something had fallen from the seat and depressed the gas pedal. He physically examined the situation noting that his foot was clearly on the brake and nothing was affecting the gas pedal. Luckily he was able to steer the vehicle into a vacant field and no one was injured.

 

Did the driver not have insurance?

 

He had insurance as did the property owners where this occurred, and both parties paid their share which did not even come close to covering the medical expenses accrued during the four months I was in traction. Ford did offfer a $500,000 settlement, but even that failed to cover current medical expenses at that time. Everyone involved has accepted their own share of the responsibility for what happened that night with the exception of Ford, they have let the tax payers cover their part.

 

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Same principle applies to cars.

 

I wholeheartedly agree and would give what few working body parts I have left to see the Ford executives and engineers who designed this product all brought up on criminal charges and held accountable for their actions.

 

let me get this straight.... you jumped in front of a moving car?

 

ANd its someone else's fault?

Something about your story is fishy.

 

Yes I did, and because of that two people are walking and talking today. As stated, I readily accept my own level of responsibility for what happened that night. I could just have easily have stood therre unharmed and watched two people die that night and I doubt if anyone would have ever said I was wrong for doing so. How does that release Ford from their responsibility for allowing these units to remain in operation when they know a fault is present in them?

 

I had no idea cruise control also put the car into gear. Now that's innovation. Now beat it troll. :blah: :blah: :blah:

 

I was not in the car when it was started, so I cannot comment on the whens or whys of the car being put into gear. Even though I disagree with you, I will not stoop to your level of intelligent dialect by calling you names.

[RichardJensen]

I've more or less retired from actively posting here, however, I will add this little tidbit:

 

In order to address rather persistent allegations of cruise control failure (or other sudden/unintended acceleration), Ford had the cruise control shut-off engineered into the master cylinder, so that any increase in cylinder pressure would turn off the cruise control.

 

This system, with about 5 million units of recalls to date, has its own problems.

 

Regarding the facts in question: Assuming that the cruise control was faulty, and that for some reason it 'remembered' the last setting, there is not a car on the road today that has an engine more powerful than its brake system. In other words, the driver of the vehicle (assuming a defect in the cruise control), had the last clear chance to avoid this accident.

 

In short: No engine can overpower fully applied brakes. Therefore, had the driver in question hit the brakes (as in a panic stop), the car would've stopped. Period. End of story.

 

If you want to try this out (and cook your automatic transmission), put your car in gear, and stand on the gas pedal with your foot on the brakes. Or, for fun, hit the gas and the brakes at the exact same time. If you have a manual, and you want to break the engine mounts drop the clutch at redline, with your foot on the brakes. The next sound you will hear will be your engine flying out from under your hood.

 

Your car will go nowhere. The power applied to the discs/drums is far in excess of the power applied at the flywheel.

 

---

 

The simple way of 'proving' that your brakes have more hp than your engine:

 

horsepower = force applied over time

 

acceleration = deceleration

 

Therefore, if your engine can propel your vehicle to 60mph in 6 seconds, in order to have equivalent horsepower, your brakes when fully applied, would need 6 seconds to take your car from 60mph to 0mph. This is because the force required to bring your vehicle from rest to 60mph is roughly equal to the force required to bring your car from 60mph to rest (acceleration = deceleration). Less time, same force = more horsepower.

Edited December 22, 2006 by RichardJensen

[FordVictim1997]

Criuse control does not work under 40 m.p.h.

Why didn' t the driver shut the vehicle off? Why did he put in gear with the engine racing so much?

How come the universal joints not break when the car was dropped into gear at full throttle?

What do you mean we as employees have to start taking responsibilty for the cars we build. We were not driving the car that hit you. We are not responsible for what happened to you. It seems to me you are speculating about the cruise control, the brake lights, and who knows what else. You said at the trial the driver claimed responsiblity. What do you want us to do? Normally, I would feel bad for you, but your story smells of bull shit.

 

The cruise control is not "designed" to work at lower speeds, but that unit was shown to have known problems in the wiring of the circuits(Ford's own engineers tested and produced the failures.) The driver felt responsible because some people are just wired that way; despite what was shown he still felt that he should have been able to do something to lessen the impact. Keep in mind that the greatest portion of time that all this was going on, I was being crushed between two bumpers so no I do not have all the facts of that night. The gaps have had to be filled in by others who were there along with those who tested the vehicle afterwards. I have no idea what was going through the driver's mind when all this was occruing, I can tell you that no matter how well prepared you may think you are to handle a crisis situation, you will never truly know how you will react once the stuff hits the fan until you are unfortunate enough to find yourself in a situation. What can you as a Ford employee do? Demand more from the executives and engineers who make the decisions to allow faults to remain in service based upon perceived costs. Anything less and you are just as much at fault as they are. You would be amazed at how many Ford employees have lied to me over the course of the last 9 years (documentation is a wonderful thing made ever simpler by this electronic age we live in.) As an employee, your own credibility is at stake as long as this continues. I could not have lived with myself if I had stood by that night and watched two innocent people die, I just don't understand how soneone can keep pushing cars out the door knowing that serious problems are often being ignored.

[Bluecon]

I've more or less retired from actively posting here, however, I will add this little tidbit:

 

In order to address rather persistent allegations of cruise control failure (or other sudden/unintended acceleration), Ford had the cruise control shut-off engineered into the master cylinder, so that any increase in cylinder pressure would turn off the cruise control.

 

This system, with about 5 million units of recalls to date, has its own problems.

 

Regarding the facts in question: Assuming that the cruise control was faulty, and that for some reason it 'remembered' the last setting, there is not a car on the road today that has an engine more powerful than its brake system. In other words, the driver of the vehicle (assuming a defect in the cruise control), had the last clear chance to avoid this accident.

 

In short: No engine can overpower fully applied brakes. Therefore, had the driver in question hit the brakes (as in a panic stop), the car would've stopped. Period. End of story.

 

If you want to try this out (and cook your automatic transmission), put your car in gear, and stand on the gas pedal with your foot on the brakes. Or, for fun, hit the gas and the brakes at the exact same time. If you have a manual, and you want to break the engine mounts drop the clutch at redline, with your foot on the brakes. The next sound you will hear will be your engine flying out from under your hood.

 

Your car will go nowhere. The power applied to the discs/drums is far in excess of the power applied at the flywheel.

 

---

 

The simple way of 'proving' that your brakes have more hp than your engine:

 

horsepower = force applied over time

 

acceleration = deceleration

 

Therefore, if your engine can propel your vehicle to 60mph in 6 seconds, in order to have equivalent horsepower, your brakes when fully applied, would need 6 seconds to take your car from 60mph to 0mph. This is because the force required to bring your vehicle from rest to 60mph is roughly equal to the force required to bring your car from 60mph to rest (acceleration = deceleration). Less time, same force = more horsepower.

Brakes with horsepower? I am willing to bet your degree wasn't in engineering.

 

And don't forget the coefficient of friction.

 

Zanatwork will probably read this and put the car right thru the garage door. And he is 10 times smarter than Pioneer. (so he says)

Edited December 22, 2006 by Bluecon

[ZanatWork]

Allow me to simplify this:

 

1. The cruise will not put the car into gear.

 

2. The brakes can overpower the car's engine.

 

So...assuming this story has even a hint of truth, the driver of the car was utterly to blame for puttin his car in gear while the engine was racing, and also for not utilizing the brakes.

 

For the event to have taken place, the driver would have to have been an intentional participant. The thread, the originator's name, and his signature all have a familiar bovine-intensive aroma about them.

 

 

ah, bluecon...posting complete idiocy, as always. As I hadn't commented on your bandwidth-wasting garbage of late, I'm surprised to find you pecking at me. Why not be a good little imbecile and buy one of the few Sebrings NOT going straight to rental?

 

As long as Pioneer...weeks after we'd last posted anythin gtoward each other...is going to post incorrect babble about me, he certainly is creating his own argument for seeming challenged!

 

Oh, wait...you're now doing the same thing! I suppose in your case, you see your post as a qualifier for MENSA....

Edited December 22, 2006 by ZanatWork

[FordVictim1997]

Since I am probably the only one on BON who has actually tried a Products Liability case as a Plaintiff's attorney, I may have some insight into the process. In order to have a successful case against a manufacturer, a Plaintiff must establish by that the product in question was defective when it left the manufacturer's hands due to a defect in design or in manufacture which rendered the product unsafe for its intended or forseeable use.

 

Proof of the defect requires expert testimony and the burden is on the Plaintiff to establish the existence of the defect by a mere preponderence of the evidence. Since most states' laws are based on Strict Liability the product is on trial not the user. The manufacturer is held responsible for the safety of its products as a matter of public policy since the manufacturer profits fron the sale of the product and controls the process by which it is designed and built. in addition, the manufacturer is able to spread the risk across a great number of products whereas the buyer is not.

 

Negligence of the user is not an issue. Only intent of the user is relevant. For instance, if the user intends to injure himself or others, there is no liability on the manufacturer or seller of the product. Some products are inherently dangerous such as knives. Their intended purpose is to cut and the danger is obvious to the user. Voluntary assumption of a known risk is a defense. There is no manufacturer's liability for cutting your fingers when using a knife.

 

In Fordvictim 1997's case, the vehicle in question alledgedly suffered a failure of the cruise control which caused the vehicle to careen out of control of the driver despite application of the brakes. I would assume that the vehicle was examined by Plaintiff's experts and Ford's experts. If not, the case would likely have been dismissed at the pre-trial level since Plaintiff would not have been able to sustain his burden of pursuasion. In my experience, it is unlikely that the cruise control would engage on its own at low speed. it is even more unlikely that the acceleration would override application of the brakes. You can try flooring the gas while applying the brake. The car won't move much less careen out of control.

 

In Fordvictim 1997's case. the driver admitted that he probably hit the gas instead of the brake. In most cases, that would be game, set and match before a jury. Fordvictim had a trial before a jury and lost. That is always a possible outcome of our systemof justice. Sometimes good cases lose and poor cases win. The risk of being a Plaintiff's lawyer is that if you lose you get nothing for your work and generally don't get reimbursed for your costs. The cost of putting on a Products Liability trial can easily run into tens of thousands of dollars and in many cases well over $100k with experts, depositions, document production, securing the product in question, etc. This case would have been complicated by the fact that the accident in question happened several years after the car was sold. This fact opens the possibility that the car was altered after production.

 

In short, the accident may have been due to driver error and not Ford's fault at all. The driver admitted as much. If so, it is simply not Ford's responsibility.

Once again you have managed to add nothing of value to the discussion. Congratulations!

 

I appreciate your insights and professional input here. To be honest, I never cared much fro lawyers before this incident but the guys who handled my case were some of the most caring individuals I have ever met. They often joked about me being the worst client ever as I insisted on recovering and overcoming the situation, yet they were always there for me even after the trial. The car was tested and strong evidence presented to the jury; when they returned their verdict they cited the fact that none else noticing the brake lights as well as the driver's admission that led to their conclusion. There were a number of other factors that I believe led to their findings, but that is not relevant here. What is relevant are the studies that Ford has done on this phenomenom showing that as the circuits in that CC unit degrade with time, errant impulses can trigger its activation. Basically, there is a backflush everytime a device such as a starter uses an electrical charge and it is this backflush that triggered the unit which was wired in such a way as to have power constantly. Ford's own engineers demonstrated that this was entirely possible by causing test units to fail exactly as described. Once the units failed, it took a great amount of pressure on the brake (I think around 250 pounds is what they reported) to bring a car to a full stop. Do the math and you will see that applying that much force to the bake pedal would push the average driver through the roof of the car. My main concern is this happened 9 years ago when these units were less than 10 years old. With the passage of time more units are being allowed to degrade. Will Ford do something once this starts occurring on a scale similar to Pinto's blowing up? If someone today was to make me an offer of every penny that Ford is worth versus seeing the affected vehicles being pulled of the road, I would gladly accept the later.