Ford loses $31M on Bronco rollover verdict...
11-09-2006, 01:04 PM
#1
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Ford loses $31M on Bronco rollover verdict...
Okay sure...what I don't understand is how Ford lost this case? 
Ford Motor Co. must pay $31 million to a South Carolina teenager who suffered brain injuries in a Bronco II rollover accident in 2001, a jury ruled.
The verdict is the largest jury award in 2006 against an automaker, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Jesse Branham III, 17, was a rear-seat passenger in a 1987 Bronco II when it flipped over on a country road in southwestern South Carolina. Branham's parents, who sued on their son's behalf, said the Bronco II rolled over because the sport-utility vehicle is inherently unstable.
"A high center of gravity causes the Bronco to roll over," during evasive driving maneuvers, said Branham's attorney Johnny Parker. The Branhams also claimed the seat belt was defective.
The Hampton, S.C., state court jury on Oct 26 awarded $16 million in actual damages and $15 million in punitive damages. Ford wasn't responsible for the accident and will appeal, said company spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes.
"The driver admitted to taking her eyes off the road to argue with children in the rear seat," Vokes said in an e-mail. The driver "failed to control the vehicle after leaving the paved road surface and failed to ensure that the children in the vehicle were restrained with seat belts."
The jury found Ford 55 percent responsible, while concluding that the driver was 45 percent to blame. Ford is responsible for the entire verdict under South Carolina law, Parker said.
The accident left Branham, then 12, with limited memory and diminished intellectual abilities, Parker said. "He can't remember what happened five minutes ago," he said. "He was a very bright young man." The accident occurred after the driver, Cheryl Jane Hall, turned to look at children in the back seat of the Bronco, Parker said. The vehicle began drifting off the road and she steered hard to the left, causing the SUV to roll, he said.
The verdict is the largest jury award in 2006 against an automaker, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Jesse Branham III, 17, was a rear-seat passenger in a 1987 Bronco II when it flipped over on a country road in southwestern South Carolina. Branham's parents, who sued on their son's behalf, said the Bronco II rolled over because the sport-utility vehicle is inherently unstable.
"A high center of gravity causes the Bronco to roll over," during evasive driving maneuvers, said Branham's attorney Johnny Parker. The Branhams also claimed the seat belt was defective.
The Hampton, S.C., state court jury on Oct 26 awarded $16 million in actual damages and $15 million in punitive damages. Ford wasn't responsible for the accident and will appeal, said company spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes.
"The driver admitted to taking her eyes off the road to argue with children in the rear seat," Vokes said in an e-mail. The driver "failed to control the vehicle after leaving the paved road surface and failed to ensure that the children in the vehicle were restrained with seat belts."
The jury found Ford 55 percent responsible, while concluding that the driver was 45 percent to blame. Ford is responsible for the entire verdict under South Carolina law, Parker said.
The accident left Branham, then 12, with limited memory and diminished intellectual abilities, Parker said. "He can't remember what happened five minutes ago," he said. "He was a very bright young man." The accident occurred after the driver, Cheryl Jane Hall, turned to look at children in the back seat of the Bronco, Parker said. The vehicle began drifting off the road and she steered hard to the left, causing the SUV to roll, he said.
11-09-2006, 01:05 PM
#2
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
So, next time, I'm gonna take my eyes off the road and talk to my rear passengers and run into a sign...
Then, I'll sue Honda.
Oh oops, here's the source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...384/1148/rss25
Then, I'll sue Honda.
Oh oops, here's the source: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...384/1148/rss25
Last edited by Yumcha; 11-09-2006 at 01:09 PM.
11-09-2006, 01:23 PM
#5
Originally Posted by AcuraDriver2006
If that was your son, you'd say otherwise...
11-09-2006, 01:24 PM
#6
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by AcuraDriver2006
If that was your son, you'd say otherwise...
Right...so, I blame the manufacturer for my own stupidity? I'm driving and I turn my head around to talk to them. Eyes off the road...lovely.
If this is the case, I'm thinking I shouldn't be allowed to have kids if I was that retarded.
Trending Topics
11-09-2006, 01:33 PM
#8
If the seatbelt was truly defective that would be one thing, but this finding is complete BS. The woman is 100% at fault. She wasn't doing her job(driving), and she got in a car accident, end of story.
Mike
Mike
11-09-2006, 01:53 PM
#9
The sizzle in the Steak
Originally Posted by AcuraDriver2006
If that was your son, you'd say otherwise...
11-09-2006, 02:31 PM
#10
Moderator Alumnus
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
They found Ford 55% responsible for some dumbass not knowing how to drive? Ridiculous...Exactly! And then doing the (unfortunetly somewhat standard) American thing of not taking responsibility for their actions and blaming someone else! SUE SUE SUE!
I feel bad for the accident, it's sad to hear. But their actions are pathetic!
The situation they find themselfs in is 100% caused by their own actions.
Although, does that truck suffer from one of Fords design flaws? Then I can see how some of the blame is on Ford. But not 55% of it.
11-09-2006, 02:52 PM
#12
Senior Moderator
the parents ought to be brain dead too. This frivolous lawsuit crap needs to stop. What ever happened to taking responsibility. I bet they would have tried to sue ford if it was a taraus that rolled over too.
11-09-2006, 03:35 PM
#14
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by fuzzy02CLS
Having owned an 88 bronco II for several years. I can say it is a little tippy. I felt it 1 day when I made a u-turn too fast.
11-09-2006, 03:45 PM
#15
Originally Posted by mclarenf3387
My dad managed to put our 1994 Olds Bravada on two wheels twice when we had it (going to fast around tight turns). Doesn't mean its the manafacturers fault.
11-09-2006, 03:48 PM
#16
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wayland, MA
Age: 37
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if she expected superb handling to supplement her stupidty to keep the car on the road then she definately should not have purchased a 20 year old SUV. I would expect ANY SUV to flip like that if you turn hard to any direction while going at a speed over 20 mph.
11-09-2006, 03:57 PM
#17
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by phile
I almost flipped the old Chevy Blazer one time too...scary as hell.
11-09-2006, 04:17 PM
#19
Senior Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Western New York
Age: 64
Posts: 25,151
Received 7,108 Likes
on
3,613 Posts
I had the displeasure of reading through 17,000 pages of documents produced by FoMoCo in conjunction with a case we had regarding a Bronco II 15 years ago. Ford intentionally put small tires on the vehicle to lower a center of gravity it KNEW with great certainty, the vehicle were it not so equipped, would roll over all the time. Our client was merging onto the NYS thruway at 40-45 mph and the vehicle "snap steered" to the right w/o our client's turning the steering wheel. Ford's documents showed this to be a possibility as well. Our guy had a spiral fracture of several cervical discs causing paraplegia. What Ford knew and hid from the public, all in an acknowledged effort to put a small suv on the market was reprehensible. I don't agree w/ 30M but we had testimony from a Ford rep talking about the costs vs. remedies vs. possible outcomes of lawsuits and they had set money aside for this very occasion. If you knew how bad some manfr's were, you'd steer clear of their products (Honda for one).
11-09-2006, 04:27 PM
#20
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by GunnmeTaLCURA04
So why didnt you sue Ford?
11-09-2006, 04:29 PM
#21
The sizzle in the Steak
Originally Posted by Yumchah
I almost flipped my old man's old Aerostar XL--the scariest experience ever in a car for me to date.
that you remembered it was an XL model.
11-09-2006, 04:37 PM
#22
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Moog-Type-S
that you remembered it was an XL model.
Always remember it...
11-09-2006, 04:45 PM
#23
Suzuka Master
Join Date: May 2001
Location: PA
Posts: 5,773
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
Regardless, why isn't the family of the driver being made responsible, at least in part. It was, after all, the driver's failure to maintain control of the vehicle that resulted in the vehicle leaving the road in the first place.
11-09-2006, 05:49 PM
#24
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by KCPreki11
Ford $$$ > Driver $$$
Issue is also something to take up with the legislature, sounds like they don't really care about contrib on part of the plaintiff.
11-09-2006, 07:10 PM
#26
Suzuka Master
If I had been on that jury, at the very most, I would only hold Ford liable for the damages that would have occurred if everyone had been wearing their seatbelts.
As for the high center of gravity, what does anyone expect. It's a freakin' truck.
As for the high center of gravity, what does anyone expect. It's a freakin' truck.
11-09-2006, 08:36 PM
#27
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by SpeedyV6
As for the high center of gravity, what does anyone expect. It's a freakin' truck.
I think it kind of goes back to what Chief said. Most of these companies want to make as much money with as little cost to them. If there is a relatively inexpensive way to increase the center of gravity and they choose not to implement that idea, and an accident happens because of that, liability will usually be found.
Yes a truck/suv is probably more unstable than a passenger car, but if there was a cheap and easy way for Ford to avoid that, then they are going to get tagged with not doing that. I don't know all the facts in the case, etc, so its hard to make a call, but that is usually what happens.
Like with the McDonalds verdict in the 90's. People get pissed of that someone doesnt' know how to drink coffee, but what most don't know is that McDonalds knew that people were getting burned but didn't care because hot coffee was better for their business.
11-09-2006, 09:42 PM
#30
Originally Posted by subinf
Like with the McDonalds verdict in the 90's. People get pissed of that someone doesnt' know how to drink coffee, but what most don't know is that McDonalds knew that people were getting burned but didn't care because hot coffee was better for their business.
there was a lot of details the media had left out simply because the information was not available.
once more details pop up on this ford case, it'll paint a better picture.
11-09-2006, 09:52 PM
#32
Master in Science
Join Date: Aug 2003
Age: 44
Posts: 3,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fuzzy02CLS
Having owned an 88 bronco II for several years. I can say it is a little tippy. I felt it 1 day when I made a u-turn too fast.
11-09-2006, 09:58 PM
#33
I can see Ford being somehow culpable, I mean even if it's an SUV, there is a reasonable amount of stability to be expected. However, 55% responsibility...at most, it should be 50% Ford (and 50% driver). But IMO, it's 100% driver's fault.
11-09-2006, 10:05 PM
#34
One on the right for me
While it is easy to call it as we see is written in the news, we werent on the jury, we didnt sit through the trial, we dont know the facts, etc. Too hard to make a legitimate call on this.
11-09-2006, 10:27 PM
#35
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by subinf
While it is easy to call it as we see is written in the news, we werent on the jury, we didnt sit through the trial, we dont know the facts, etc. Too hard to make a legitimate call on this.
11-09-2006, 10:29 PM
#36
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by subinf
While it is easy to call it as we see is written in the news, we werent on the jury, we didnt sit through the trial, we dont know the facts, etc. Too hard to make a legitimate call on this.
back seat of the Bronco, Parker said. The vehicle began drifting off the road and she steered hard to the left, causing the SUV to roll, he said.
11-09-2006, 10:41 PM
#37
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by mclarenf3387
It doesn't state what speed, but you do this in most trucks at anything over about 40-50 mph and your going on two wheels or on the side.
I'm saying if Ford knew about this "problem" and knew of an inexpensive way to fix it and chose not to do so then it isn't hard to imagine why they are being held partially liable.
11-09-2006, 10:46 PM
#38
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by subinf
I'm saying if Ford knew about this "problem" and knew of an inexpensive way to fix it and chose not to do so then it isn't hard to imagine why they are being held partially liable.
11-09-2006, 10:53 PM
#39
One on the right for me
Originally Posted by mclarenf3387
I'm curious to know what speed this happened cause this "problem" because past a certain speed its 100% driver fault. You can't cheat physics and there is nothing a company can do about that.
Pretty much. Without everything the jury had to consider its too hard to tell.
11-10-2006, 12:37 AM
#40
Vollgas auf der Autobahn!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dresden, Deutschland/Germany
Age: 60
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chief F1 Fan
I had the displeasure of reading through 17,000 pages of documents produced by FoMoCo in conjunction with a case we had regarding a Bronco II 15 years ago. Ford intentionally put small tires on the vehicle to lower a center of gravity it KNEW with great certainty, the vehicle were it not so equipped, would roll over all the time. Our client was merging onto the NYS thruway at 40-45 mph and the vehicle "snap steered" to the right w/o our client's turning the steering wheel. Ford's documents showed this to be a possibility as well. Our guy had a spiral fracture of several cervical discs causing paraplegia. What Ford knew and hid from the public, all in an acknowledged effort to put a small suv on the market was reprehensible. I don't agree w/ 30M but we had testimony from a Ford rep talking about the costs vs. remedies vs. possible outcomes of lawsuits and they had set money aside for this very occasion. If you knew how bad some manfr's were, you'd steer clear of their products (Honda for one).
The fact that auto manufacturers put aside money to pay for lawsuits seems prudent in a country where even a dummy that admits to not properly controlling a vehicle can win in court.
Many years ago I worked for Alfa Romeo, they had a case where a family sued Alfa because the family felt the Spider was unsafe. The fact that Alfa had many witnesses stating that the man was seen drinking in many bars prior to his fatal rollover accident, the fact that at the scene of the accident a near empty sixpack of beer was found plus add to that that the man was found to have a near triple the legal limit blood alcohol content did not faze the judge or the jury. Alfa had to pay ....................... that is called American Justice.
If a legitimate issue witha vehicle exists then the manufacturer should pay. If a person is stupid then too damn bad, I see absolutely no reason why Ford or any other manufacturer should pay for ADMITTED stupidity.
Jens