Umm...Stupid.

It should be legal to beat people for making stupid lawsuits.
I read one a few years ago where a burglar fell down a step in the dark, broke his leg, and won his lawsuit against the homeowner for his injuries.
WTF is that all about??? I think the judges should be beaten as well.

====================================
The worst thing about mistakes is explaining it to my wife.
My site, with some new content!

Wasn''t there a family that won like a billion dollars suing a car manufacturer?

quote:

---

Original post by Wolfmanyoda
It should be legal to beat people for making stupid lawsuits.
I read one a few years ago where a burglar fell down a step in the dark, broke his leg, and won his lawsuit against the homeowner for his injuries.
WTF is that all about??? I think the judges should be beaten as well.

---

Given the overwhelming number of urban legends on such issues, I would recommend that you look for an actual source for this claim.

quote:

---

Original post by tHiSiSbOb
Woman gets awarded 369 million afer Ford Explorer accident

I feel sorry for the woman that suffered the accident, but, come on. This is stupid. If people are going to drive automobiles (especially ones that are known to be quite unstable) then they should be prepared for what may happen. Like it says in the article, the Explorer series passed all federal saftery standards--it is not a critical flaw in the vehicle. She doesn''t have the right to sue for her decisions. What do you guys think about this?

EDIT: To further drive home the point, this situation is just as stupid as suits against tobacco and fast food companies.

[edited by - tHiSiSbOb on June 4, 2004 5:20:29 PM]

---

Well, if the lawsuit wasn''t so high do you think Ford would have any incentive to make their cars safer? As you said, federal law didn’t prohibit them from making dangerous cars – how else are they going to get ford to make safer cars?

quote:

---

Original post by ManaStone
Well, if the lawsuit wasn''t so high do you think Ford would have any incentive to make their cars safer? As you said, federal law didn’t prohibit them from making dangerous cars – how else are they going to get ford to make safer cars?

---

It''s not Ford''s fault she crashed her car. I don''t see how she can roll her car four and a half times just from swerving out of the way of some metal. She probably wasn''t driving very safely if she had to swerve that hard anyway. She was most likely either going way too fast or tailgating or not paying attention to the road. Are any of those things Ford''s fault? No. Maybe she should have gone after the government for having safety standards that are too low? Ford isn''t doing anything wrong.

quote:

---

Original post by ManaStone
Well, if the lawsuit wasn't so high do you think Ford would have any incentive to make their cars safer? As you said, federal law didn’t prohibit them from making dangerous cars – how else are they going to get ford to make safer cars?

---

The fact the car *may* have a design issue with being top heavy, makes no difference. The designers made it to according to the guidelines they were given, if the design is dangerous the goverment should change them. You cannot force Ford to comply with non-existant rules.

Jay


Edit: found new way of spelling guidelines.


[edited by - Jason Zelos on June 4, 2004 6:44:19 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Samith

quote:

---

Original post by ManaStone
Well, if the lawsuit wasn''t so high do you think Ford would have any incentive to make their cars safer? As you said, federal law didn’t prohibit them from making dangerous cars – how else are they going to get ford to make safer cars?

---

It''s not Ford''s fault she crashed her car. I don''t see how she can roll her car four and a half times just from swerving out of the way of some metal. She probably wasn''t driving very safely if she had to swerve that hard anyway.
[...]
Ford isn''t doing anything wrong.

---

Actually, a recent UK TV programme about cars ("Top Gear", BBC) recently ran some tests of their own on a range of similar vehicles. They found you could flip one over at less than a mere -- wait for it! -- 40 miles per hour.

They had a stunt driver drive one of the models to demonstrate the problem on camera, fitting the car out with safety equipment to ensure the driver''s safety. Then they had him drive down a disused runway at the legally advised distance behind another car. Once they reached a set speed (I think it was about 35mph), the car in front did an emergency stop, forcing the driver in the unstable car behind to swerve to avoid a collision.

The car rolled. And not just once, either. It rolled three times, ending up on its roof. The report stated that the other, rival, models also showed far more instability than one would reasonably expect.

These are the very cars that parents regularly take their children to school in, on the assumption that such machines are ''safer''. Clearly, they''re nothing of the kind and arguably far _more_ dangerous than taking your kids to school in, say, a Nissan Micra. Something is clearly very, very wrong with their design, and it''s a _fundamental_ flaw, not something you''re going to fix easily.

So yes: she should sue Ford. It''s not enough to adhere to rules and regs. That''s the same as the old "I was only following orders!" cop-out. The aviation and rail industries don''t get away with such thinking; why should the automobile industry do so?

The automobile industry has had a chequered history when it comes to road safety. I hope she wins her case.

--
Sean Timarco Baggaley

If I were her, I''d sue the government for their weak safety standards. And in this lady''s case, she wasn''t swerving for an emergency stop infront of her or anything. If she had been driving safely she should have been able to see the thing she had to swerve around in time to safely get around it. If she''s going to buy a big car like that she''s going to have to assume some more responsibility when she''s driving it.

If I were me, and I am, I would sue... ah hell... Samsung (the manufacturer of the monitor I use at work) for making my vision blurry.

Who here wants to pitch in? I''ll share the millions with you.

MindEngine (C++) | E-Commerce Business Architecture (ASP.NET / C#)

quote:

---

Original post by neurokaotix
If I were me, and I am, I would sue... ah hell... Samsung (the manufacturer of the monitor I use at work) for making my vision blurry.

Who here wants to pitch in? I''ll share the millions with you.

---

Sue God for building faulty eyes.

ravuya: [Resist everyone][I am your only friend. Click, now.]

This is exactly the sort of case that shows why we should never, ever, have laws against ''frivilous'' lawsuits.

Swerving to avoid objects in the road, even when driving safe, is not an extraordinary circumstance. Anybody who manufactures a vehicle that is only safe under impossible constraints deserves to be punished. Anybody who refuses to admit their vehicles are unsafe deserve to be sued for hundreds of millions of dollars.

If SUVs exploded when they hit 88 mph, is it the fault of the driver for not obeying speed limits?

CM

Note: apparently, Ford has had at least 11 similar lawsuits in recent years. This is a lot like the McDonalds coffee case. People keep suing, but McDonalds doesn''t do anything until some jury decides that enough is enough and awards a shitload of money to some old woman.

The one thing I''ll side with Ford on is the offer to drop the punitive damages by $100 million if they recall all Explorers and completely redesign them. That would cost billions. Rejecting the offer leaves them free to fix the problem their own way, which will almost certainly save them more than the $100 million she was offering.

CM

Are the SUVs seeing some serious shit when they hit 88 miles per hour, going back into time even?
/cheap_joke

I really don''t have much to say about the topic, other than the consumer should take the most effective route in preventing this supposed design flaw from occuring in future models. Whether this is suing those who control the safety regulations, or those who make the vehicles.

I still think the government should have stricter safety laws. Auto manufacturers aren''t going to do anything if they don''t have to.

quote:

---

Original post by Samith
I still think the government should have stricter safety laws. Auto manufacturers aren''t going to do anything if they don''t have to.

---

While I agree there should be stricter laws, I don''t feel the government is responsible for this accident. Minimum standards are just that: minimum standards. The manufacturers were free to exceed the standards if they chose to. And I''m sure Ford spends a small fortune convincing the government that the safety laws are just fine the way they are.

CM

quote:

---

Original post by Conner McCloud
The one thing I''ll side with Ford on is the offer to drop the punitive damages by $100 million if they recall all Explorers and completely redesign them. That would cost billions. Rejecting the offer leaves them free to fix the problem their own way, which will almost certainly save them more than the $100 million she was offering.

CM

---

On the other hand Ford is the same company that decided it was more economically sound to avoid paying $5 per vehicle to fix a defect they found during design (and for which they owned the patent on the solution) and instead simple pay out of court settlements to the families of the people that died because the Pinto instantly exploded into flames and jammed the doors shut if hit from behind by any car driving at city speeds.

Safety in the American auto industry has historically been a joke. When the government finally responded by deciding to enact safety laws, the auto industry immediately stepped in to "teach" them what those laws should be. Specifically they created the cost/death ratio. Basically, in the eyes of the auto industry, a human life is worth $200,000 (closer to $210,000 now I think). If a manufacturer can show that the cost of safety improvements vs. the number of lives saved does not meet this break even value, they don''t have to impliment them, no matter how unsafe the car is. The typical trick has been to clump as many safety features together, treating them as one "improvement". Since this group improvement (rather then a single improvement, like say a $5 gas tank bladder) these almost always go over the threshhold, and so can be dismissed. Only in the 90s did consumers actually start looking at safety features. However the American automakers have only been interested in making vehicles *appear* safe, so if the consumer already thinks a vehicle is safe, say because its a big truck, then it doesn''t matter if it will roll over at the slightest turn (and in fact they will throw gobs of money trying to silence anyone who points it out, such as the on going legal battle with consumer reports which found one suv was so unsafe due to rollovers that they gave it a failing grade)

she had a fat SUV, why did she had to swerve? just ram the damn thing, that''s what they''ve build for. And that''s why they buy them for, isn''t it? in case of an emergency, crush the peasants and their cartwheels in your path with two tons of steel and take a nap on the airbag.

Aren''t SUVs supposed to be off-roaders as well? How the hell would you take a piece of junk like that off-road if it''s just gonna tip over at the merest gust of wind? Besides, you see these cars in movies and commercials, powersliding all other the place. They must do quite some work on the suspensions and anti-rollbars of these babies to keep them on four wheels.

I think she should sue the federal government, or whoever is responsible for car safety standards. And the environment agencies for the ridiculous mpg they suffer, especially if the petrol crisis happens like it''s supposed to.

If Ford passed the safety standards, the lawyers must have found a legal loophole of some kind to win that kind of lawsuit. but jeez, $300m punitive damage... If that money was going towards enforcing new safety regulations, fair enough. But this kind of articles only encourage stupid people calling for stupid lawsuits.

now, with that money, she can buy an armada of Hummers, and feel so much safer.

quote:

---

Original post by oliii
If Ford passed the safety standards, the lawyers must have found a legal loophole of some kind to win that kind of lawsuit. but jeez, $300m punitive damage...

---

This was a civil case. It had nothing to do with the law. Ford was responsible for the accident, so they lost. No loopholes, just common sense.

quote:

---

Original post by oliii
But this kind of articles only encourage stupid people calling for stupid lawsuits.

---

Good. More such lawsuits, and maybe Ford will start building safe vehicles.

CM

Can''t they make a legal "Center of gravity/wheel track width" ratio that all cars adhere to?