Ford punished $15 mil for using lap belts only in Windstar

Submitted for your soap box/ranting pleasure: it is now "the law" that an auto manufacturer who has evidence that the provision of lap belts alone for rear seat passengers can sever the spines of children in freeway collisions with 29,000 pound rolls of steel, and who continues to provide lap belts alone, is guilty of outrageous and despicable conduct sufficient to support an award of $15,000,000 in punitive damages.

What a world!

CHATSWORTH -- A jury awarded $45 million Tuesday to a 12-year-old boy paralyzed while wearing a lap belt when his family's Ford minivan slammed into a 15-ton roll of steel on the Golden State Freeway in

1996.

The verdict against Ford Motor Co. was reached at Chatsworth Courthouse after a seven-year court battle and what jurors described as seven grueling days of deliberation.

"I'm just glad this is over," said Agneta Karlsson of Cota de Caza, whose son, Johan, was 5 when he was critically injured by a lap belt restraint while riding in the back seat of a Ford Windstar.

"I'm glad the jury found Ford guilty and I'm pleased they didn't put any blame on me. I'm happy for my son, that he can move forward."

A Ford spokeswoman said the company disagreed with the decision and would likely appeal.

"Ford has a long history of ethical behavior," Kathleen Vokes said from the company's headquarters in Dearborn, Mich. "This was a tragic accident. Unfortunately, the child wasn't belted properly. It's also unfortunate companies get sued when people aren't belted properly."

The multimillion-dollar verdict against Ford is in addition to a $10 million settlement paid by other plaintiffs involved in the crash Nov.

23, 1996.

On that day, Johan and his family were headed from Laguna Niguel toward Washington state when their leased Ford Windstar plowed into a

29,000-pound roll of steel that had fallen from a truck when it crashed into another hauler.

Tim Mansfield, the van's driver, his sister-in-law, Karlsson, and her five children, ages 9 months to 8 years, were restrained by shoulder harnesses and suffered serious injuries.

Johan, wearing a lap belt in the center of the back seat, suffered a severed spinal cord that left him permanently paralyzed. The boy appeared in a wheelchair once during the court proceedings.

Attorneys Tom Girardi and David Lira, who represented Johan in the six-week trial, had researched 500 cases of Ford documents in order to back up their claim that the company knew its lap belts could result in injuries but had failed to warn the occupants of its cars.

They also contended before Superior Court Judge Howard J. Schwab that the carmaker had withheld important documents in the case.

"The case is crucial with respect to all companies that do research, determine they have a problem, and don't do anything about it," Girardi said. "In this case, Ford had actual (video) footage of what could happen to a little boy with a lap belt and a crash of this velocity -- and they found out the little boy's spinal cord to be severed.

"Despite that, Ford marketed the car as a vehicle for the junior hockey team."

The jury awarded Johan $30.45 million in compensatory damages, plus $15 million in punitive damages.

In 1999, Transcontinental Transport agreed to pay Johan $10 million, with three other trucking companies, including a company that loaded the steel coil, paying an additional $375,000.

The money will be placed in a trust for Johan.

A hearing will take place next month to determine whether Ford can receive credit for money already paid the crash victim. Girardi expected the award to be reduced by as much as $5 million.

Marvin Kay, an attorney who first represented Johan during the trial, said that despite his injuries, the boy wants to be an athlete.

"He wants to get out of his wheelchair," he said. "With his attitude, he can do anything."

Jurors said they reached their decision Tuesday afternoon despite key differences of opinion during deliberations.

"One of the most difficult things I've ever done in my life," said one juror who declined to give his name. "The most difficult thing was group dynamics."

Other jurors said they reached their decision with one goal in mind. "Johan was the main concern," said Roland Selame, 58, of Chatsworth. "His future. He's taken care of, that's the main issue."

Yrs 180 TS 28

Reply to
180 Out
Loading thread data ...

I thought the crash would have caused the injuries not him wearing the seatbelt.

Reply to
John Wiebalk

It's too bad that Ford will be forced to add yet another stupid permanent warning sticker like the airbag crap on my visors. The parents weren't satisfied with the award they received from the company truly at fault, the trucking company that lost the load, so they sue Ford who built the van to federal standards and shouldn't have any liability in this case. It's too bad in today's society people are no longer responsible for their own actions.

Reply to
Mike King

I guess the price of a new Mustang will be going up again this year. Damn lawyers.

Reply to
.boB

Does anyone remember sleeping in the back window area of the family car when you were a kid? I do, LOL, I also remember standing up in the front seat of my dad's car which had a 4 speed and him flipping me over the front seat on the 1-2 shift LOL. FWIW my dad lost his second wife and 6 year old step-grandson on the way to school in a head on collison a little over a year ago(a truck crossed the centerline), the airbags and seatbelts worked but they had no effect on the outcome! The insurance company of the driver at fault FINALLY coughed up about $70,000!

Reply to
winze

The van was built to federal standards. why dont they sue the fed govt and have them up the standards. If they wanted to be safe they shouldnt have been out driving. you can be killed in a car accident no matter what safety features you might have. they family should have been responsible for installing upgraded safety equipment if they really cared for there family. Are all cars gonna start coming with 5 post belts? lol

Reply to
John Wiebalk

Cars it is very unlikely that an automaker, especially a domestic marque like ford or GM will put in 5 point belts or any other _different_ safety device that is not mandated by the feds. What I mean by _different_ is one that is significantly different from existing mandated safety equipment. Where an arguement of similiarity cannot be made in court.

The reason is, because if the safety device isn't perfect and with limitless capability, they'll get sued. A secondary reason is because federal regs don't allow for it. When the Ferrari F40 came to the USA, the feds demanded that the racing harness be replaced with a 3 point automatic seatbelt.

Reply to
Brent P

You'll have to pardon me for being a tad skeptical.... I haven't seen a lap belt since the early 70's. Since then, everythihng has been a three point.

Here in Canada, we generally get the cheapest of the cheap.... since we get adequate protection (idiots with licences excluded), I can only assume that there is a certain amount of poetic licence to your post. Please provide a source.....

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

Great,

Thanks to Agneta Karlsson of Cota de Caza we may are certain to bring American industry to it's knees.

Good job, some day very soon we will be all driving Hyundais due to the lawyers and Californians destroying what is left of industry in this country.

Of course, the reason for little 12 year old Johan Karlsson's injuries could not have been because his mother ran into a 15-ton roll of steel on the Great and Glorious Golden State Freeway, No, it's because of the Ford Motor Company.

Keep bringing it down dude, I want a supercharged Hyundai Tiburon, so appropriately named after that great mecca of Islamist California. Make it a 2 cylinder version so we can accomodate the EPA regs.

John

Reply to
John Shepardson

Jim -

Our family had a 95 Windstar, which I believe was the first year they were made?...anyway, they definetely had 3-points all around, but the middle seat in the bench in the back had a lap belt....i can only assume this is the one they are talking about...Anyway, he said windstar but the article just says minivan so it may be moot to even mention it, but nonetheless...it did sound like something a stupid jury would say...

Oh really? That's the main concern? Sorry to sound cold-hearted, but it's not supposed to be a jury's job to "take care" of the victim. They're supposed to be fair and unbiased.

Even if this story is true, I smell an appeal...

Point of reference, my 77 Gremlin even has 3-points ;-)

- Nick

Reply to
Nick D.

Yup.... totally forgot about those middle belts (gawd, old age ain't all it's cracked up to be)...... apologies to the original poster.

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

'83 Mustang here. Lap belts in the back seats.

It used to be (don't know if they've changed this recently) that only the outer seats had to have 3 point belts; In vans, minivans and cars that can fit three or more in a row, the middle seat(s) are only required to have a lap belt.

Our 1991 minivan's third row has a lap belt for the middle, as did our

1998 Regal's back seat. Our 2003 Jetta has a 3 point belt (and an adjustable headrest) for the rear middle passenger, but I don't know if it's a requirement yet here in the US, or just something extra the Germans threw in to give the consumer a warm fuzzy feeling.
Reply to
Garth Almgren

Am I the only person who saw "Unfortunately, the child wasn't belted properly. It's also unfortunate companies get sued when people aren't belted properly." The parents DID NOT take the extra time to make sure their child was safe and obviously didn't spend the extra money to provide him with a proper child seat. Just because he was 5 did not mean he should have been allowed to sit like an adult. Sorry, I can not believe that people so NOT use EXTREME safety measures to protect their children. I rented a car when my nephew required a safety seat that wouldn't sit snuggly in the mustang's backseat.

Reply to
Sustang

"Nick D." wrote

Full marks for Nick D. for spotting the true culprit in the story. People can blame lawyers and the legal system all they want, but the fact is that its jurors who have got the thing all screwed up. Personal injury liability is SUPPOSED to be based on fault. But public opinion -- no doubt in response to endless media accounts about huge jury verdicts -- has skewed so far off the tracks that most jurors do seem to think that their job is to transfer money from rich corporate defendants (and their insurance companies) to the pockets of injured plaintiffs (and their lawyers), regardless of fault: to make everything "all better." The problem is that the right to a trial by jury has been read into the U.S. Constitution and would require an amendment to get it out.

Yrs, 180 TS 28

Reply to
180 Out

The problem is that trial by jury was to allow the people to protect their liberties from the government. However, as you say an end run has been found. By changing the way people think, the protection of the jury system has been rendered ineffective. The concept you present isn't only true of civil proceedings but of criminal ones as well. The jury is designed to be a blockage for the kind of crazy things we are seeing.

However, getting rid of the jury system will only be the final nail in the coffin for people. So long as juries exist we the people can take things back. Get rid of the juries and well, then expect this sort nonsense to grow and get bigger and the courts to be used to an even larger extend to create law and shape society. After all, once gone, the people have one less protection.

Reply to
Brent P

I'd be interested in finding any "average" people that would even consider a

5 point harness. It sure wouldn't work too good for the long dress ladies.

For myself, a 5 point would have me feeling a little too racy to be allowed on the street.

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

Part of my "day job" includes Out Of Province vehicle inspections - any new car registration in Alberta (except for a new car) is subject to an inspection. Almost every car I have done with a child seat installed doesn't pass the inspection.

The big problem with safety is that too many people expect safety to be a built in, passive kind of thing. The big truth is that we are all responsible for our own actions, errors and omissions.

-- Jim Warman snipped-for-privacy@telusplanet.net

Reply to
Jim Warman

Come on Jim, isn't "the Government" supposed to take care of everything? No thinking required....... ( they certainly take car of the stuff in my wallet!) The "new" numpties in Ontario are already reneging on their campaign promises and of course blaming the last government, gee how refreshing.... StuK

Reply to
Stuart&Janet

As I understand it there are racing harnesses that aren't any more difficult to fasten than the three point belts. But of course I doubt the freedom of movement is there....

Reply to
Brent P

"Jim Warman" wrote in a message:

Jim: I have to agree totally! The whole problem is the lawyers. At the rate we're going, the lawyers are going to run out every business in the US. Just look at most of the major lawsuits in the past. How much did it cost Ford for one accident when a girl was driving backwards on the street in a Pinto, to go back to a service station that she forgot her purse at. The lawyers thought that when she got rear-ended and the car caught on fire, that it was Ford's fault. Ford wasn't driving the car. Then there's the lady that put a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds between her legs, and it spilled and burnt her. Yep, that was McDonalds fault according to the lawyers. I think people needs to start taking responsibility for their own stupid actions, instead of trying to pass it on to someone else, and looking to get that free money.

Reply to
GEB

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.