Ford hit with $28 million verdict in rollover suit

http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.../54-zavala.inc

(or http://tinyurl.com/44pgq)

Read the whole story...what do you make of it?

On Fri, 4 Mar 2005, Dave Stone wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/44pgq

I find myself conflicted over this verdict. My first and strongest
reaction:

I applaud whenever idiots eject themselves from the gene pool, and that's
what happened here. The driver was drunk and speeding, the passengers were
dumb enough to have gotten into a drunk-driven car and dumb enough not to
wear their seat belts, so their deaths were their own stupid fault. It's
bad precedent to make an automaker pay for deaths that result from the
vehicle occupants failing to use their seatbelts.

On the other hand, Ford has a long and shameful history of shoddy,
least-possible-cost safety engineering for the North American market, and
they have proven to be very resistant to changing this policy. Perhaps if
enough verdicts like this are made to stick, their beancounters will
arrive at the radical notion that it makes good business sense to build
the damn things properly in the first place.

DS

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 18:40:15 -0500, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> I find myself conflicted over this verdict. My first and strongest
> reaction:
>
> I applaud whenever idiots eject themselves from the gene pool, and that's
> what happened here. The driver was drunk and speeding, the passengers were
> dumb enough to have gotten into a drunk-driven car and dumb enough not to
> wear their seat belts, so their deaths were their own stupid fault. It's
> bad precedent to make an automaker pay for deaths that result from the
> vehicle occupants failing to use their seatbelts.
>
> On the other hand, Ford has a long and shameful history of shoddy,
> least-possible-cost safety engineering for the North American market, and
> they have proven to be very resistant to changing this policy. Perhaps if
> enough verdicts like this are made to stick, their beancounters will
> arrive at the radical notion that it makes good business sense to build
> the damn things properly in the first place.

Well said.

I think what should happen is that punitive damages should be paid to
charitable organizations instead of to the plaintiff. Thus the companies
would still have to pay, the plaintiffs would have less incentive for
frivolous lawsuits and the charitable organizations could use the money.

Also it should be illegal for lawyers to reap a percentage of a settlement
like this, they should only be entitled to compensation on a hourly basis
(their hourly rates are generous enough), which further would cut down on
the number of frivolous lawsuits.

Furthermore they should create a new type of verdict, where the plaintiff
is found at fault and gets nothing but the manufacturer still has to pay
punitive damages to the charitable organization if there was a defect in
his product.

Chris

"C.H." > wrote in
news

>
> I think what should happen is that punitive damages should be paid to
> charitable organizations instead of to the plaintiff. Thus the
> companies would still have to pay, the plaintiffs would have less
> incentive for frivolous lawsuits and the charitable organizations
> could use the money.



Perhaps pay to hospital emergency room funds?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:29:48 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>I think what should happen is that punitive damages should be paid to
>charitable organizations instead of to the plaintiff. Thus the companies
>would still have to pay, the plaintiffs would have less incentive for
>frivolous lawsuits and the charitable organizations could use the money.

How about if you shut the **** up, give your money to charity (read
muslim terrorist support groups), and let the rest of us decide what
we do with ours.

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 11:30:23 -0600, DTJ wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Mar 2005 16:29:48 -0800, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>I think what should happen is that punitive damages should be paid to
>>charitable organizations instead of to the plaintiff. Thus the companies
>>would still have to pay, the plaintiffs would have less incentive for
>>frivolous lawsuits and the charitable organizations could use the money.
>
> How about if you shut the **** up, give your money to charity (read
> muslim terrorist support groups), and let the rest of us decide what
> we do with ours.

How about you read up on the first amendment and get some anger management
classes?

Chris

On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 10:31:17 -0800, "C.H." >
wrote:

>>>I think what should happen is that punitive damages should be paid to
>>>charitable organizations instead of to the plaintiff. Thus the companies
>>>would still have to pay, the plaintiffs would have less incentive for
>>>frivolous lawsuits and the charitable organizations could use the money.
>>
>> How about if you shut the **** up, give your money to charity (read
>> muslim terrorist support groups), and let the rest of us decide what
>> we do with ours.
>
>How about you read up on the first amendment and get some anger management
>classes?

I wasn't aware that the first amendment gave you the right to steal
from me.

> I think what should happen is that punitive damages should be paid to
> charitable organizations instead of to the plaintiff. Thus the
companies
> would still have to pay, the plaintiffs would have less incentive for
> frivolous lawsuits and the charitable organizations could use the
money.
>
> Also it should be illegal for lawyers to reap a percentage of a
settlement
> like this, they should only be entitled to compensation on a hourly
basis
> (their hourly rates are generous enough), which further would cut
down on
> the number of frivolous lawsuits.
>
> Furthermore they should create a new type of verdict, where the
plaintiff
> is found at fault and gets nothing but the manufacturer still has to
pay
> punitive damages to the charitable organization if there was a defect
in
> his product.

I've been saying this for years!!!

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 09:18:44 -0800, Larry Bud wrote:

>> I think what should happen is that punitive damages should be paid to
>> charitable organizations instead of to the plaintiff. Thus the
> companies
>> would still have to pay, the plaintiffs would have less incentive for
>> frivolous lawsuits and the charitable organizations could use the
> money.
>>
>> Also it should be illegal for lawyers to reap a percentage of a
> settlement
>> like this, they should only be entitled to compensation on a hourly
> basis
>> (their hourly rates are generous enough), which further would cut
> down on
>> the number of frivolous lawsuits.
>>
>> Furthermore they should create a new type of verdict, where the
> plaintiff
>> is found at fault and gets nothing but the manufacturer still has to
> pay
>> punitive damages to the charitable organization if there was a defect
> in
>> his product.
>
> I've been saying this for years!!!

Welcome to the club

Did you see that DTJ's reply? My guesstimate is, that he is either a
lawyer getting rich off these cases or that he is waiting for his chance
to get injured and hit it big...

Chris

In article ch.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> On the other hand, Ford has a long and shameful history of shoddy,
> least-possible-cost safety engineering for the North American market, and
> they have proven to be very resistant to changing this policy. Perhaps if
> enough verdicts like this are made to stick, their beancounters will
> arrive at the radical notion that it makes good business sense to build
> the damn things properly in the first place.

Which automakers have laminated side glass in their north american market
product line?

Unless you can show Ford is the exception here, I am going to have to
discount this as another one of your 'any time there is even a tinest
reason to bash ford' oppertunist rants.

My guess is few if any models come with laminated side glass in the US
market.