March 20, 2005
I would have hung this jury until hell froze over before I would have rendered such a dumbass verdict. A drunken driver plows at 60 MPH into the back of another vehicle stopped at an intersection and the driver of the stopped car dies. Whose fault is that? Why, Ford Motor Company, of course.
A defective seat cost a suburban man his life. Now a Chicago jury is making Ford pay his family $27 million.
A drunk driver actually caused the crash, but a jury found it was the driver's seat in a Ford Escort that led to the death.
I am certain that this jury also could "find" that the earth is flat and Elvis is alive. Buncha maroons. We have a vehicle with all of these "design flaws" engineered out of it. It's a called A FUCKING TANK and even those get blown up sometimes.
There IS no such thing as a perfectly safe vehicle. There never will be. And for a jury to award $27 million because Ford didn't design a driver's seat to withstand a 60-MPH rear-end collision is ludicrous. That's not a jury verdict. It's the conclusion of a goddam lotto game. "AND OUR GRAND PRIZE WINNER IS..."
This stuff makes me want to barf.
i agree. the damn drunk driver should be liable. Period. Maybe Ford can sue him for the $27M.
Ahh, but that's the whole point. Everyone involved knows that Ford is not really responsible for this tragedy. The problem is that someone's got to PAY, dammit (hey, it's the American Way, thanks to the lawyers), and the drunk driver likely doesn't have $27 Million.
But I do have to disagree with one point, Rob: we could absolutely have a completely safe car. The only problem is that any such car would be prohibitively expensive, and then we'd all be bitching about that.
what if Ford sued the guy? that is a great idea! has it happened before?
We've already GOT a perfectly safe car. It's called a "Volvo."
But they are ugly and expensive; therefore, not many people drive them.
The driver's seat in the '93 Escort I had while living in Fairbanks fell apart under me over the course of five years. All this time I thought it was because my weight was flirting with 400 pounds for some of that time, now I discover the damn thing was defective. Good thing I have my lawyer on speed dial. </sarcasm>
Kathleen, not only would the perfectly safe car be prohibitively expensive, it would also weigh seven or eight tons and get about three miles to the gallon.
And Rob, the reason people don't drive Volvos is because they don't want other people to think they're liberals.
Not only is it ludicrous, it'll become more so when Ford (and other major manufacturers) start specifically designing seats that can withstand a 60mph rear end impact, naturally increasing the cost of all of their vehicles yet again for a pie in the sky "one life saved" wet dream.
Buying a new car? At least ten grand of it is going towards "safety" shit in an attempt to band-aid this little thing everyone used to call "common freaking sense".
'We've already GOT a perfectly safe car. It's called a "Volvo."'
I'll politely say a Volvo is perfectly safe in the sense that it is perfectly marketed as a perfectly safe car for people who are interested in perfectly safe cars.
I did 31 years in auto safety, not for Volvo. Volvo has emphasized safety for a long time. They do a pretty good job of it.
P.S. Long ago the Fed's contracted some companies (for millions) to produce a "really safe" car. GM built several of "their own version", ran multiple crashes, and sold one to the Fed's for $1. It was VERY, VERY safe. You WOULD NOT have wanted to buy or drive those cars. UGLY SLUGS.
At least Ford will pay up.