Ford loses Explorer lawsuit

.... this has al been hashed, rehashed, cut up and reconstituted only to be hashed again....... The Ex is no more inherently unstable than any other of dozens of similar vehicles.

This is a world where people get judgement because coffee is hot (who would ever think). This is a world where most bad events are followed by someone saying "I didn't think that.....". This is a world where people are hell bent on touching the wall to see if the "Wet Paint" sign is the truth.....

The Ex is NOT intrinsically unsafe..... however, many of the people that drive them.....

hmmm...I wonder if the judge was married to the CEO of UHAUL?

Ford was found not liable in 11 previous Explorer suits. What changed? The facts?

Vote for Bush, Iraq needs the money.

I wonder if the driver had anything to do with this accident...

NAHHH, the cars just drive themselves.

This has been rehashed so many times that it's getting boring. The last-generation Explorer was less likely to tip than almost a dozen other SUVs. But, of course, people who don't check tire pressure for *years*, drive with cell phones, laptops, 15-course meals, unbelted passengers, and too much other *junk* in the car are *not* the problem, right? Ugh.

Oh, Fox is a credible source. LOL

I just fell off my chair laughing. Please, a *tree stump* is a better alternative than George Bush.

Defending in these lawsuits is like trying to keep the politicians from raising your taxes. No matter how many times you successfully defend a lawsuit or stop a tax increase, they just come back again and again and again. With so much money to be gotten they don't care how many cases, or how many "tax increase votes" they have to run. They will run as many as they need till they get the answer they want.

-- Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

This kind of thing makes me sick. The people on jury duty in San Diego must have jello in their heads. Why on earth would this woman deserve $246 million in punitive damages? $122 million in compensatory damages was not enough? Even assuming that this woman was unable to work at all for the rest of her life, she would never have earned anything remotely approaching that kind of money, even if she worked until she was 100.

I don't understand the logic to this. Something awful happened to her, for sure, but they will somehow make it all better by giving her a shitload of someone else's money? That money doesn't appear magically at FoMoCo. It comes (unwittingly) out of the pockets of every consumer who buys one of their cars. So they took some of my money and gave it to this woman to make her feel better. Hell, I don't know I even like her that much...

This lady made an evasive manuever (her action) to avoid some road debris (her decision) and managed to roll over her Explorer (that she bought). As it turns out the debris was something falling off an RV ahead of her. She obviously either isn't a very good driver, wasn't paying proper attention, or was following the RV too closely to give her appropriate time to avoid the hazard. Why is she not suing the RV owners instead of Ford? I'll tell you why: It isn't because Ford is more culpable, it's because they have deeper pockets. Period.

If I were Ford I would have examined all of the reasons why this lady's roll over was of her own doing, which no doubt would include the possibility of underinflated tires and other neglected and improper maintenance. Like, what was the exact tire pressure at the time of the incident? How many miles were on the truck and when were the shocks last changed? The onus should be on the complaintant to prove the event that occured was not due to their own actions or non-actions, but due solely to the vehicle design. It is up to the complaintant to prove that the vehicle design caused the roll-over, not up to Ford to prove it didn't.

Even then, as I recall when I bought my Explorers, they come with pamphlets warning of the inherent roll-over dangers of these types of vehicles. Nobody *forced* this woman to buy an SUV. Where on earth did she get the idea that this would be a safer design car for her and her children?

The suit claims that the roof crushes too easily on Explorers, and that Ford engineers knew this, but opted to make it that way for financial reasons. Well, no kidding! If they made a car 100% bullet-proof safe nobody in the world would be able to afford it, not to mention the gas it would guzzle to haul it's bloated weight down the road. And what of the two convertibles I have in the driveway? Should I start proceedings now on these manufacturers? I would obviously not be safe should I somehow drive under a tractor trailer in my little Z3 or heaven forbid, flip my Jeep Wrangler over... Either way, it would certainly not be *my* fault!

Will personal responsibility ever return to being the "norm" in our society? It certainly doesn't seem so. I just hope this ruling is overturned on appeal. It would be nice if there was then a "frivolous litigation" countersuit against the lawyers who brought this to bear, but I guess that would be a tough sell considering the suit was won in the first round.

-Fred W

I couldn't agree more! There is nothing inherently unsafe about the Explorer. Drivers (read "soccer moms") need to understand that it's NOT a sedan or sports car, and drive accordingly. After all, didn't they buy it so they could drive through the woods, over rocks and streams and up snow-covered mountains?

Rather than blame the jurors, who are only average dumb citizens who despise big business and are easily swayed by smooth talking lawyers, blame the trial lawyers themselves, who are all too eager to take on these cases. Without them and their greed, manufacturers could to put money into product improvements rather than warning labels and lawsuits.

The legal system has gone to hell, driven by money and publicity instead of common sense.

"Jim Warman" sputtered in message news:VmUvc.4833$B%4.1067@clgrps12...

Not to make a judgement either way, but... Everyone's been burned by coffee, but *third-degree* burns is what McDonald's coffee was capable of producing when that woman got her cup of it. It was so bad she needed skin grafts between her legs!!

Funny I drink coffee everyday, have for more than 20 years, and I have never been burned by *Hot* coffee. You make coffee from boiling water, not warm water, boiling water always has and always will be capable of producing

*third-degree* burns. Do you really think there is a problem with your "hot" coffee being hot enough to still be warm when you get to work?

I don't want to drive a severely "Idiot Proofed" limited vehicle, because society has been convinced it believes we should drive "Idiot Proof" vehicles...

It is impossible to completely Idiot proof any product.

Not wanting to continue this Off Topic, but there is a thing called latent heat (which is mathematically calculated, but, completely different from sensible heat which can be measured by a typical thermometer )...simply put there is a certain amount of heat that is applied and must be present for a liquid to transform from one state to another. Three states exist....solid, liquid, and vapor (or gas).

While I agree that it is incredibly dumb to put a flimsy cup of boiling hot liquid between my legs, the injuries she sustained were substantial. Most of us have a little more brains than that, but this is an elderly woman. 'Nuff said on that topic.

Now, in order for water to transform from a solid ( ice) to a liquid, heat must be applied. At some point it must be heated to at least 32 degrees Fahrenheit...but water can also exist as a liquid at that temperature....the difference is the amount of heat required to make that transition....this is the latent heat. A similar process occurs at water's boiling point, where water exists at 212F and steam is at it's lower ended of existence. So, it is entirely possible to have water, coffee at a temperature hot enough that it will produce a very nasty burn but not quite hot enough to boil in the cup. The difference is slight, but it is sufficient to cause enough damage to tissue.

Me....I just hand them my coffee cup and let them change cups for me...rather than risk creating a mess and having to use all those napkins, they give away, to clean it up.

That's because the idiots keep getting smarter.