blwnsmoke Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 (edited) https://www.yahoo.com/news/alabama-man-awarded-151m-ford-133605681.html Ouch... I'd really love to know specifics on this. 17 year old vehicle, person not wearing a seat belt.. what type of maintenance/upkeep was done on such an old vehicle. Quote A Dallas County jury has awarded $151,791,000 to a Selma, Alabama man who was left paralyzed after a 1998 Ford Explorer rolled over, leaving him paralyzed. The jury found that Ford Motor Co. failed to meet its own safety guidelines for the Explorer’s rollover resistance requirement and attempted to cover up the defective design. They ruled that Ford must pay Travaris “Tre” Smith $100 million in punitive damages and $51,791,000 in compensatory damages. One of Smith’s lawyers, Kendall Dunson of Montgomery-based Beasley Allen, said the decision will give him access to home care and assistance. “We represent a 24-year-old young man who cannot be left alone to care for himself in any way,” Dunson said in a release announcing the decision. “This verdict represents justice for Tre and his family.” In August 2015, Smith was a passenger in an Explorer when the driver swerved to miss an animal. Instead of sliding out, the vehicle rolled over twice and snapped Smith’s spine. The jury ruled that was because of a flaw in the Explorer’s design. Smith’s attorneys said engineers at Ford advised the company to change the design, but that it instead changed the testing process and destroyed data from the original testing. Edited February 18, 2019 by blwnsmoke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 This might be different than the other lawsuits if the engineers raised the issue and it was covered up. OTOH any tall vehicle is subject to rolling under the right circumstances. Was he wearing his seatbelt? If not then I don't think Ford should be held responsible at all. Stupid juries just feel sorry for the plaintiffs sometimes and ignore contributory negligence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcartwright99 Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 This will be appealed, as it should. The fact that he wasn't wearing his seat belt puts his own negligence front and center. This seems like an ambulance chaser attorney trying to strike it rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 The worst one was the dude who was driving drunk, not wearing seatbelts (including passengers), went off the road and back on rolling his explorer. He and most of the others were ejected and killed. His family sued Ford claiming they should have used safety glass (windshield glass) on the side windows to keep him in the vehicle. And they won big. I know Ford appealed but that verdict was completely ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 It will be appealed to almost 1/1000 of that once it heads to a judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 17 hours ago, blwnsmoke said: Smith’s attorneys said engineers at Ford advised the company to change the design, but that it instead changed the testing process and destroyed data from the original testing. So how do we know this if the data was destroyed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 38 minutes ago, theoldwizard said: So how do we know this if the data was destroyed ? Apparently Ford admitted it destroyed data associated with computer based crash test simulation program ADAMS for Explorer. https://www.beasleyallen.com/news/dallas-county-jury-faults-ford-motor-co-for-rollover-crash/ The 1998 Ford Explorer has been at the center of two historic safety recalls in the U.S. due to its defective design. The model consistently failed the Consumer Union testing because of its propensity to roll over, and company engineers advised Ford it needed to change the design, but Ford refused. Instead, it opted to change the way the product was tested, moving it from a real-world setting to a computer-based simulation called ADAMS. Yet, Ford destroyed the original input and output data obtained through the ADAMS testing, claiming it had no scientific value and was too expensive to maintain. “We have seen bad conduct before but the egregiousness of Ford’s scheme to mislead the jury was stunning. Ford claimed the ADAMS data that would have proved the safety of this vehicle was destroyed because it had no scientific value and was too expensive to maintain. We provided proof that something as basic as a $100 thumb drive could have easily preserved the data,” Boone said. At trial, Plaintiffs also explained that in its efforts to resist redesigning the Explorer, Ford altered less expensive components such as air pressure and tire sizes but to no avail. The defective design remains in the stream of commerce decades later and continues to seriously injure and kill consumers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harley Lover Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) Quoting the newsletter of a law firm, including its opinions, as though they are journalistic facts. Wow. Edited February 19, 2019 by Harley Lover Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rperez817 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 17 minutes ago, Harley Lover said: Quoting the newsletter of a law firm, including its opinions, as though they are journalistic facts. Wow. Don't know what you're getting at. Are you referring to the Beasley Allen news release on the case Travaris D. Smith v. Ford Motor Company, et al, 27-CV-2016-900273.00? Like any press release on a lawsuit, it mentions both facts of the case (such as the safety recalls on 1998 Ford Explorer and Ford's destruction of ADAMS simulation data) as well as the opinions (such as the law firm's recommendation that Ford should have fixed the design issues with Explorer rather than defend lawsuits like the Smith one). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 16 minutes ago, rperez817 said: Don't know what you're getting at. You quoted that source as proof that Ford destroyed the data, but that's just their allegation. Is there a source showing that Ford admitted that in court or that it was proven by the evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 (edited) Never mind, I just noticed what I originally posted was way out of date. Edited February 19, 2019 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jniffen Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 I remember seeing one case where they were blaming Ford on a Explorer rollover . From the crash site photos, you can clearly see they had different manufacturer brand tires on the front vs the back. I mean, yea you have to confirm if the manufacturer has done any wrong, but the person has to take some responsibility. Ever since that one murder trial we all know of from the '90s my conclusion there is no right, wrong or justice, mainly who has the better attorney and if the Judge has favoritism. Maybe it was always that way and I didn't notice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 22 hours ago, rperez817 said: Apparently Ford admitted it destroyed data associated with computer based crash test simulation program ADAMS for Explorer. Ever since the Pinto "issue" Ford has implemented strict "data retention" policies. If the data did not meet the criteria for retention, it was destroyed. 21 hours ago, Harley Lover said: Quoting the newsletter of a law firm, including its opinions, as though they are journalistic facts. Wow. CONCUR ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 23 hours ago, rperez817 said: “We have seen bad conduct before but the egregiousness of Ford’s scheme to mislead the jury was stunning. Ford claimed the ADAMS data that would have proved the safety of this vehicle was destroyed because it had no scientific value and was too expensive to maintain. We provided proof that something as basic as a $100 thumb drive could have easily preserved the data,” Boone said. So....ADAMS Data was collected in what? the mid to late 1990s? USB flash Drives didn't come into existence till after 2000 or so...so how the fuck could they use one? Not to mention they aren't the best idea for storing data long term-what a bunch of bullshit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.