Court Orders New Trial In Ford Rollover Case

[slick rick 10+ year member]

A car is sold as transportation. When you buy a car you understand that 1) It weighs more than 10 times what you do and thus it could be potentially dangerous and that same vehicle is 2) Capable of traveling at speeds high enough to be dangerous and that 3) only licensed drivers are supposed to operate said vehicle.
Who didn't lock their doors? Locked doors = no dead kid. Simple as that.

Also, how old was the kid in question here? Old enough to climb into the truck, obviously... but what kinda thoughts did the kid have? Bailing out of a moving vehicle is stupid no matter how old you are... so I don't think he did that... so we have hum falling out. Well if you fall out of a vehicle you're stupid anyway.

Kid = Stupid.

Darwin's theory of natural selection at it's best.

I agree, and it were my kid I would say inside my head its my fault...but the reality is there is a more than viable lawsuit there. when you buy a car... you do not walk into the dealership and ask questions of how it wil crush your child. everyone realizes they weigh more than a feather, its the fact that it was not resonably foreseeable (proximate cause/legal cause) for this accident to occur, thus Ford can be liable in a strict products liability suit, and if you want a negligence action, you must show feasibility of a safer alternative design.

edit: Ford has many defense such as comparative negligence which would diminish the P's recovery of $.

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

I agree, and it were my kid I would say inside my head its my fault...but the reality is there is a more than viable lawsuit there. when you buy a car... you do not walk into the dealership and ask questions of how it wil crush your child. everyone realizes they weigh more than a feather, its the fact that it was not resonably foreseeable (proximate cause/legal cause) for this accident to occur, thus Ford can be liable in a strict products liability suit, and if you want a negligence action, you must show feasibility of a safer alternative design.
edit: Ford has many defense such as comparative negligence which would diminish the P's recovery of $.

I see where you're coming from there... and also I have little ground on which to stand on seeing as I know very little about SPL suits. In any case, I think the parents will get their cut of the pie no matter how little Ford is at fault. This will in turn cause the company to have to cut back costs in order to compensate for the millions they just dished out because some shitty parents let their kid fuck around in an unlocked vehicle unsupervised. As a result, people will get laid off, further sending our economy to hell.

The moral of the story is, if you don't want our economy to ****, be a better parent.

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

This reminds me of the Weird Al song, "I'll Sue Ya"

The suit is ridiculous. The parents were negligent, and shit happened.

Is it really Ford's fault that their cars aren't childproof? I think not. If I have a house built, and my kid drinks bleach because the contractor didn't childproof my cabinets, does that mean I can sue the contractor? No, it's my job to be responsible for my own child, and to protect him or her. I don't blame Ford in the slightest. The parents just needed to watch their child more closely.

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

This reminds me of the Weird Al song, "I'll Sue Ya"
The suit is ridiculous. The parents were negligent, and shit happened.

Is it really Ford's fault that their cars aren't childproof? I think not. If I have a house built, and my kid drinks bleach because the contractor didn't childproof my cabinets, does that mean I can sue the contractor? No, it's my job to be responsible for my own child, and to protect him or her. I don't blame Ford in the slightest. The parents just needed to watch their child more closely.

And one more for the Ford side of the case.

 

[slick rick 10+ year member]

take a products liability class..you will surely enjoy it. You will see cases where you go "wtf was the SC thinking here", and you see some where you are like "could a company be that stupid in the design of the product?"

-to Jman, you would go after the bleach company for failure to adequately warning, and possible design defect of the cap on the bottle. That example has nothing to do with the cabinet..unless they were "special cabinets designed for the protection of children".

-to Phantom, you are right because logic gets outweighed by testimony and evdence such as dead children under a cars wheel, etc. Due to this, a jury is much more likely to award damages using their heart, rather than their brain.

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

There aren't any disclaimers on Audioque's website that says that their subs can cause hearing loss. I'ma go sue them. brb

 

[slick rick 10+ year member]

There aren't any disclaimers on Audioque's website that says that their subs can cause hearing loss. I'ma go sue them. brb

you are 100% right...however even if you win a settlement, good luck collecting on it. Look at the Goldman family v. the Juice. However, Audioque can say its an "open and obvious danger" to play music that loud, and a "misuse" of the product if you exceed power ratings, etc. Also, they can say comparative negligence due to this, and diminish recovery based upon the % of fault between parties. AKA, only nominal damages could be awarded...or maybe punitive damages due to reckless and wanton behavior, and to thwart other companies from acting as they do.

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

you are 100% right...however even if you win a settlement, good luck collecting on it. Look at the Goldman family v. the Juice.

Do explain. I have no idea what's going on there. I know is the Simpson case... but what are you talking about?

 

[jmanpc 5,000+ posts]

you are 100% right...however even if you win a settlement, good luck collecting on it. Look at the Goldman family v. the Juice. However, Audioque can say its an "open and obvious danger" to play music that loud, and a "misuse" of the product if you exceed power ratings, etc. Also, they can say comparative negligence due to this, and diminish recovery based upon the % of fault between parties. AKA, only nominal damages could be awarded...or maybe punitive damages due to reckless and wanton behavior, and to thwart other companies from acting as they do.

Sometimes I wonder why the court system can't factor in common sense. I know good and well that I can go deaf from sound. The dude who sued McD's for making him fat knew good and well that fast food isn't healthy. Parents who don't pay attention to their kids should know good and well that kids have a knack for hurting themselves.

It's common sense, and people who sue for frivolous things like this should get thrown in jail for wasting everyone else's time.

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

Sometimes I wonder why the court system can't factor in common sense. I know good and well that I can go deaf from sound. The dude who sued McD's for making him fat knew good and well that fast food isn't healthy. Parents who don't pay attention to their kids should know good and well that kids have a knack for hurting themselves.
It's common sense, and people who sue for frivolous things like this should get thrown in jail for wasting everyone else's time.

This is why there are caps to how much you can get in lawsuits in many areas. After Katrina, there were caps put in place to help save the insurance companies from going bankrupt, which would ultimately lead to even less people getting their money.

 

[slick rick 10+ year member]

Do explain. I have no idea what's going on there. I know is the Simpson case... but what are you talking about?

they won the civil suit because the standard of proof is much lower...and due to some "crafty" legal work by his attorneys(such as homsteadeception for his house in Florida), he has locked up much of his assets and thus cannot "pay off" the suit. There is really nothing that can be done, thats why in SPL suits and PL suits, people go up the chain to people who can "afford" to pay off a possible lawsuit.

 

[slick rick 10+ year member]

Sometimes I wonder why the court system can't factor in common sense. I know good and well that I can go deaf from sound. The dude who sued McD's for making him fat knew good and well that fast food isn't healthy. Parents who don't pay attention to their kids should know good and well that kids have a knack for hurting themselves.
It's common sense, and people who sue for frivolous things like this should get thrown in jail for wasting everyone else's time.

They do in certain respects thats why there are defenses and affirmative defenses. but even still, (im making this up because I know nothing about the Fat case), if that dude who sued McDonalds was found to be "40% liable for his own actions", and the award is $1M, he still gets 600k for being "wrong". Sick isnt it? This is a generlization because a few states practice contributory negligence(if you are found through trial to be even 1% wrong you get NOTHING), but comparative N is typically used because it is more fair in these types of suits in resolving the problem.

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

I think that contributory negligence thing is what all courts should go by. On top of that, I think the parents would be about 70% or more at fault.

 

[slick rick 10+ year member]

I think that contributory negligence thing is what all courts should go by. On top of that, I think the parents would be about 70% or more at fault.

They did...but of course decisions came down in the early 20th century, and as soon as 1 state adopted the idea of comparative N, many more states followed. I like the comparative N, but it leaves room for adversarial system..i.e. if you have a bad attorney and you are the P (maybe couldnt afford a great attorney), yet your case should award you with something. under comparative N theory, you are much more likely to be awarded something, as opposed to a contributory N theory where if your "basic" attorney neglects to introduce into evidence something that would swing the jury...you would win nothing. At least in comparative you can get something for you being cheap and not hiring the best attorney. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

[phantom240 5,000+ posts]

They did...but of course decisions came down in the early 20th century, and as soon as 1 state adopted the idea of comparative N, many more states followed. I like the comparative N, but it leaves room for adversarial system..i.e. if you have a bad attorney and you are the P (maybe couldnt afford a great attorney), yet your case should award you with something. under comparative N theory, you are much more likely to be awarded something, as opposed to a contributory N theory where if your "basic" attorney neglects to introduce into evidence something that would swing the jury...you would win nothing. At least in comparative you can get something for you being cheap and not hiring the best attorney. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

None of this would be an issue if the parents were greedy bastards in the first place. If I let my kid play around in my car and got himself killed, I wouldn't even think to go after Nissan because it was my fault I let my kid play in the car.