[drivefaster]

Ford to appeal $18-million judgment
Ford Motor Co. said Thursday it will appeal an $18-million damage award from a Texas jury that found it liable for injuries the owner of a Ford F150 truck suffered in a rollover accident.

Attorneys for Mario Castro, who was paralyzed after his 1997 F150 SuperCab pickup went off the road and rolled over, said the ruling included $5 million in punitive damages against Ford for building the truck with a defective roof.

Castro had been drinking at the time of the August 2001 accident, according to Ford. Two passengers in the truck suffered minor injuries.

"We knew going into the case that our client would have some responsibility for the incident itself," Castro's attorney Mikal Watts said in a statement. "However, we knew that the terrible injuries he received were caused by the failure of the roof to protect him, and that's what the jury pinned on Ford."

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said there was no evidence the roof of the F150 was defective. Ford contended Castro's injuries were not caused by contact with the roof during the rollover.

Why do these cases even go to trial? I could see if it was an accident for any other reason than being drunk.

 

[scottie137]

My "favorite" was the moron who got drunk, climbed over two barbed wire fences to get to an electric tower, climbed up the tower, was electrocuted (and lived...much to my chagrin) and then sued the power company in Florida for negligence. He said it was too easy for him to climb over the fences and that they had not adequately protected the public safety...

 

[JohnsZX2SR]

...or the burglar in LA who fell through a skylight and died while burglarizing an apartment. His family successfully sued the skylight manufacturer and the owner of the apartment claiming his death was the result of a defective skylight design.

Fortunately, the award was overturned on appeal and the skylight manufacturer asked the court to order the plaintiff and the law firm (that took the case on a contigency basis) to pay for the legal costs incurred by the skylight manufacturer.

When a law firm loses a case they take on a contigency basis or a large class action suit, the law firm should be required to bear the burden of the costs incurred by the other parties.

[ 04-11-2003, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: JohnsZX2SR ]

 

[BerinG]

Ford employees should sue him for drinking and driving and causing danger on the road

 

[Ray]

What if you roll a convertable mustang?

is ford liable for a defective roof then?

or if i am in my focus and get hit by a train? or an 18 wheeler? were my doors not adequate?

how about if i am driving, and an asteroid comes down and crushes me while at work. is my work liable?

 

[nazthug]

i dont understand how you can claim a roof to be defective? What kinda jury did they have, a bunch of morons?

How do you claim a roof failed? What does that mean? How do you judge that? if you roll over, **** happens, roofs get bent and broken, it all depends on how you go over, im not quiet sure what the problem is here. The moron was drinking too....so everyone that ever gets into an accident and gets injured because of the crash, can now sue the car company because it didnt fully protect them? Im kinda lost

 

[KonaZXIII]

Originally posted by demonfire:
...an asteroid comes down and crushes me while at work. is my work liable?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">[SARCASM]Well of course they're lible! Duh!
You can sue the architect, and the contractors
who built the building because they did not make it sturdy enough to support an asteroid!

[/SARCASM]

 

[zx3steve14]

im GLAD to see ford get screwed! dont know why anyone would defend em **** ford and more power to anyone that can find a way to screw them!

 

[rpvitiello]

Originally posted by zx3steve14:
im GLAD to see ford get screwed! dont know why anyone would defend em **** ford and more power to anyone that can find a way to screw them!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Great so we sue ford out of existence, or make all cars in the US at least $40,000 because everyone is out to make a quick buck!

 

[zx3steve14]

Originally posted by rpvitiello:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by zx3steve14:
im GLAD to see ford get screwed! dont know why anyone would defend em **** ford and more power to anyone that can find a way to screw them!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Great so we sue ford out of existence, or make all cars in the US at least $40,000 because everyone is out to make a quick buck!

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">yeah i see a lot of people signing up to get paralyzed as a result of what this guy did!

you might not realize this but we already jack up the price of foreign cars with tariffs and such if we didnt the US automakers wouldnt stand a chance! sounds good to me! level the playing field!

 

[Phillip]

Lemme tell you guys a little story.

Way back many moons ago, there used to be an industry called "Civil Aviation". Everything was fine until one day a lawyer came to the scene of an airplane crash. "Ummm," the lawyer thought, "I wonder what caused this aircraft to crash?" Later, he finds the pilot had run out of fuel.

Ok, the FAR's (Federal Aviation Regulation) states that you MUST have a certain amount of fuel onboard at ALL times (at least .5 hour during daylight,.75 at night.).

The lawyer decides it was the manufactures fault for not using a larger tank. More gas, the guy would have made it, right. The problem is he had broken the FAR's by letting his fuel run low. Lawsuit was won and MILLIONS were paid. Remember that 6 year old that crashed flying cross-country? Jessica if I remember. Anyhow, she died doing what she loved, right? Ya, that's what her Mother said...'till the lawyers got ahold of her.

Two lawsuits. One for Cessna making the aircraft (C-177) and the engine manufacture for building the engine....no engine, no aircraft, no aircraft, no crash...right

Doesn't matter that a dozen FAR's got busted on that flight.

Jump to future.

We can no longer buy any small aircraft for a decent price because companies like Cessna and Piper gotta tack on 50-100 grand to the price to cover lawsuits by morons.



Bottom line to this story:

Let lawyers start winning cases with drunk drivers and you'll see the prices of cars skyrocket because of lawsuits.

 

[zx3steve14]

are you people all under the impression that if you are involved in a rollover accident that the roof should NOT be stong enough to support the car? **** that guy he was driving drunk which is something ai ****ing HATE. BUT i dont see why you guys dont think a roof should protect you from being paralyzed in case of a rollover

i DO think 18 million is a little much but you guys have to figure this guys life is RUINED he can almost NEVER work again. i cant IMAGINE what his medical bills are.i was involved in an accident where i was t boned (not in my focus) at about 35mph and my bills for treatment (hospital, ambulance, physical therapy chiropractic, prescriptions)were 100 short of $17,000 dollars. he drove drunk does that make any difference as to whether the design of the car should keep him from being permanently disabilitated in case of an accident?? i can see where you guys are coming from but your view seems a little short sighted to me

 

[MrJingles]

The article didn't say the guy was drunk. It said he had a few drinks. Furthermore, when were his few drinks? Were they over the span of an hour? 2 hours? 5 hours? It doesn't say. Let's not jump to conclusions based on one little vague paragraph. And, FORD claimed he had been drinking. I'm sure there's no bias there.

Few drinks != drunk

I can have a 'few drinks' and be fine.

[ 04-12-2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: MrJingles ]

 

[Jimmy]

Originally posted by zx3steve14:
are you people all under the impression that if you are involved in a rollover accident that the roof should NOT be stong enough to support the car? **** that guy he was driving drunk which is something ai ****ing HATE. BUT i dont see why you guys dont think a roof should protect you from being paralyzed in case of a rollover

i DO think 18 million is a little much but you guys have to figure this guys life is RUINED he can almost NEVER work again. i cant IMAGINE what his medical bills are.i was involved in an accident where i was t boned (not in my focus) at about 35mph and my bills for treatment (hospital, ambulance, physical therapy chiropractic, prescriptions)were 100 short of $17,000 dollars. he drove drunk does that make any difference as to whether the design of the car should keep him from being permanently disabilitated in case of an accident?? i can see where you guys are coming from but your view seems a little short sighted to me

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">His injuries were unrelated to the roof collapsing (which I dont think it did anyway)

 

[sector4208]

everyone takes to drinkin differently...my friend can drink fifths of vodka all night like its water and never slur a word or appear drunk...my other friend has one beer and he gets buzzed pretty good ....after 3 he is drunk... but if you have the guts to get in the car drunk or close to it you are a coward because it takes more to say no i cant drive then it does to drive... my mom and little sister would have been killed by a drunk driver if they would have drove the mustang instead of the explorer because some drunk guy in full size chevy truck hit them head on at 50 on a side street... so i have nothing but hate for anyone who even thinks about drivin drunk ...

 

[InsertCleverNameHere]

Good Gawd...

We NEED tort reform and we need it yesterday!

There was a case up here in WA where a dude saved a kid on a runaway snow tube. He was paralyzed in when the he collided with the innertube and hit the ground on his neck (or something like that)

He sued (and won

) the family of the kid he tried to stop and the maker of the snow tube for gizillions.

His council said the design of the tube was not safe. So now are they going have disc brakes or something....Idiots!

[ 04-12-2003, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: InsertCleverNameHere ]

 

[aaron g]

Originally posted by Jimmy:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by zx3steve14:
are you people all under the impression that if you are involved in a rollover accident that the roof should NOT be stong enough to support the car? **** that guy he was driving drunk which is something ai ****ing HATE. BUT i dont see why you guys dont think a roof should protect you from being paralyzed in case of a rollover

i DO think 18 million is a little much but you guys have to figure this guys life is RUINED he can almost NEVER work again. i cant IMAGINE what his medical bills are.i was involved in an accident where i was t boned (not in my focus) at about 35mph and my bills for treatment (hospital, ambulance, physical therapy chiropractic, prescriptions)were 100 short of $17,000 dollars. he drove drunk does that make any difference as to whether the design of the car should keep him from being permanently disabilitated in case of an accident?? i can see where you guys are coming from but your view seems a little short sighted to me

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">His injuries were unrelated to the roof collapsing (which I dont think it did anyway)</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">so what if he would have ruined someone's else's life because he was drinking. in my opinion this is ridiculous just like the mcdonalds coffee law suit.

 

[aaron g]

Originally posted by zx3steve14:
im GLAD to see ford get screwed! dont know why anyone would defend em **** ford and more power to anyone that can find a way to screw them!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">huh! support the idiots of society these days

 

[JohnsZX2SR]

Southwest Airlines is being sued for what a flight attendent did NOT say in a version of a nursery rhyme.

Southwest Air sued over a rhyme

[ 04-12-2003, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: JohnsZX2SR ]