Jury Orders Ford to Pay $7 Million to Family of Mustang Crash Victim

[Zooks527]

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a40080784/ford-mustang-crash-court-case-7-million/

Sponsored

 

[br_an]

What an awful way to die

 

[KingKona]

Based on the information available in the article, it was a stupid jury.

 

[Cobra Jet]

Perishing by fire is horrible - but if the argument was the fire was caused by the master cylinder imploding on impact due to the angle, speed and inertia of the vehicles meeting - how is this a Ford issue?

Every vehicle has an "exposed" master cylinder reservoir - past and present. More modern day vehicles have a plastic master cyl reservoir, as opposed to many years ago when the MC reservoir was metal.

For those wondering about the fire aspect, this article has info on brake fluid flammability when coming in contact with a heated surface:
https://trid.trb.org/view/294408

Is the argument the fact that a plastic reservoir can be crushed and break open on impact, and the resulting splashing of brake fluid onto hot engine components can spontaneously ignite?

Or is the argument that Ford's design and location of the MC is not sufficient? Because if it's the design and location - this is not a "Ford" thing, it's an "all" vehicle Manufacturing issue AND an approved design by DOT and other automobile regulations.

How is a part failure (and location of it) the fault of Ford - when we're talking a legally approved design by automotive safety standards and a location that almost every single automotive manufacturer utilizes?

Does NHTSA crash testing cover every single possible aspect of a vehicle crash and the resulting damages and/or injuries - that could lead to a fatality? NO. It covers the most common crash types, regions of impact and how a "body" can be injured, as well as what current safety implementations can prevent serious injury or possible death. NHTSA can't possibly predict or come up with every crash scenario possible. If a vehicle passes the standards based on the current safety grading levels and vehicle construction - the vehicle is safe for retail sale to consumers. Just because an actual event occurs which had results beyond the norm of testing (and very unfortunate fatality) doesn't mean it's the fault of any vehicle manufacturer.

For all intentional purposes, shouldn't the lawsuit name the brake fluid manufacturer? If the fluid content/ingredients wasn't flammable when coming in contact with hot surfaces, the fluid would never have ignited, and no fire condition would have existed. True? So maybe those who manufacture brake fluid need to revise the ingredients so it cannot spontaneously combust when hitting a hot surface.

I don't see this as a Ford fault OR insert other XYZ vehicle manufacturer in place of Ford.

Also how is it that the individual who caused the accident is only at 1% fault? Heck, if we take a step back further beyond the brake fluid combustion resulting in the subsequent fire, if the other driver had not crossed over and smashed into the Mustang's A-pillar, there would never have been an accident resulting in said death, correct? So to me - the other driver should have been held accountable for at least 99% at fault for not maintaining their lane of travel and not being in control of their vehicle.

The resulting Judgement is way off base when really looking at the Big Picture.

 

[Evolvd]

Perishing by fire is horrible - but if the argument was the fire was caused by the master cylinder imploding on impact due to the angle, speed and inertia of the vehicles meeting - how is this a Ford issue?

Every vehicle has an "exposed" master cylinder reservoir - past and present. More modern day vehicles have a plastic master cyl reservoir, as opposed to many years ago when the MC reservoir was metal.

For those wondering about the fire aspect, this article has info on brake fluid flammability when coming in contact with a heated surface:
https://trid.trb.org/view/294408

Is the argument the fact that a plastic reservoir can be crushed and break open on impact, and the resulting splashing of brake fluid onto hot engine components can spontaneously ignite?

Or is the argument that Ford's design and location of the MC is not sufficient? Because if it's the design and location - this is not a "Ford" thing, it's an "all" vehicle Manufacturing issue AND an approved design by DOT and other automobile regulations.

How is a part failure (and location of it) the fault of Ford - when we're talking a legally approved design by automotive safety standards and a location that almost every single automotive manufacturer utilizes?

Does NHTSA crash testing cover every single possible aspect of a vehicle crash and the resulting damages and/or injuries - that could lead to a fatality? NO. It covers the most common crash types, regions of impact and how a "body" can be injured, as well as what current safety implementations can prevent serious injury or possible death. NHTSA can't possibly predict or come up with every crash scenario possible. If a vehicle passes the standards based on the current safety grading levels and vehicle construction - the vehicle is safe for retail sale to consumers. Just because an actual event occurs which had results beyond the norm of testing (and very unfortunate fatality) doesn't mean it's the fault of any vehicle manufacturer.

For all intentional purposes, shouldn't the lawsuit name the brake fluid manufacturer? If the fluid content/ingredients wasn't flammable when coming in contact with hot surfaces, the fluid would never have ignited, and no fire condition would have existed. True? So maybe those who manufacture brake fluid need to revise the ingredients so it cannot spontaneously combust when hitting a hot surface.

I don't see this as a Ford fault OR insert other XYZ vehicle manufacturer in place of Ford.

Also how is it that the individual who caused the accident is only at 1% fault? Heck, if we take a step back further beyond the brake fluid combustion resulting in the subsequent fire, if the other driver had not crossed over and smashed into the Mustang's A-pillar, there would never have been an accident resulting in said death, correct? So to me - the other driver should have been held accountable for at least 99% at fault for not maintaining their lane of travel and not being in control of their vehicle.

The resulting Judgement is way off base when really looking at the Big Picture.

Never try to make common sense of court outcomes. A good lawyer with enough nonsense-speak can convince a jury of anything. This will most certainly be appealed and I would expect the judgement to be significantly reduced or voided.

 

[Torinate]

Absolutely my heart goes out to the family of the deceased person. However, how can the other driver - who crossed the center line - be only 1% at fault? The person crossed center and plowed into the mustang! I don't understand that. Same as the mechanic that died in a thread I posted a few weeks ago. I don't understand the logic of these types of things OR understand how ANYONE of sound mind could possibly agree with it. I have no words...

 

[The Demon]

Agree with @Cobra Jet and @Evolvd. Reminds me of the "I burned myself with coffee at McDonald's BS".

 

[Kachøw]

Never try to make common sense of court outcomes. A good lawyer with enough nonsense-speak can convince a jury of anything. This will most certainly be appealed and I would expect the judgement to be significantly reduced or voided.

Being really stupid isn't limited to just juries, judges are too.

One guy sued me a while back after we'd talked about selling my house at the time to him via and then he went dark for over a week. I hadn't signed any paperwork with him. Signed with someone else because I didn't hear from him and then he filed a lawsuit against me saying we had a contract. (we didn't, I never explicitly said I would sell to him in our emails)

Ended up having to sell to that asshole and pay off my original buyer because the Judge refused to throw the case out. It would have cost me tens of thousands in litigation with no hope of recouping my costs. My attorneys were dogshit too, but that's besides the point.

Getting back to the original topic at hand though, this lawsuit against Ford is really dumb. This should be something that the insurance company of the person who caused it should be paying for.

But our court systems aren't for upholding justice. They're nothing more than a weapon filled to the brim with corrupt people.

 

[The Demon]

Ended up having to sell to that asshole and pay off my original buyer because the Judge refused to throw the case out. It would have cost me tens of thousands in litigation with no hope of recouping my costs. My attorneys were dogshit too, but that's besides the point.

Wow, that sucks. That new owner may have had an accidental roach problem when they moved in. Just saying.

 

[Kachøw]

Wow, that sucks. That new owner may have had an accidental roach problem when they moved in. Just saying.

I think his new house may have smelled reminiscent of piss throughout and he might have been missing a lot of light bulbs. Can't say for sure though .

There was a $7,000 bill for the sewer line needing to be redone that I had found out about from the original buyer's inspection though, among other repairs that were needed. So I had the last laugh in the end.

Needless to say though, I now have a burning hatred for lawyers and don't plan on owning a house again until I'm married (if that ever happens lol)

 

[Evolvd]

Being really stupid isn't limited to just juries, judges are too.

One guy sued me a while back after we'd talked about selling my house at the time to him via and then he went dark for over a week. I hadn't signed any paperwork with him. Signed with someone else because I didn't hear from him and then he filed a lawsuit against me saying we had a contract. (we didn't, I never explicitly said I would sell to him in our emails)

Ended up having to sell to that asshole and pay off my original buyer because the Judge refused to throw the case out. It would have cost me tens of thousands in litigation with no hope of recouping my costs. My attorneys were dogshit too, but that's besides the point.

Getting back to the original topic at hand though, this lawsuit against Ford is really dumb. This should be something that the insurance company of the person who caused it should be paying for.

But our court systems aren't for upholding justice. They're nothing more than a weapon filled to the brim with corrupt people.

Reminds me of a more recent lawsuit where a guy took his Jeep in for service. One of the techs didn’t know how to drive a manual, hopped the clutch, and ended up crushing another tech to death. The family of the dead guy is suing the Jeep owner.

 

[br_an]

the mechanic that died in a thread I posted a few weeks ago

OMG somebody died in your thread??? Literally?

 

[Red65]

This is incredibly unfortunate for the girl and her family. Losing a family member is never easy, especially when they were so young. However, let's consider the ramifications of the precedent set with this ruling. This would open the door for other lawsuits involving other vehicles and manufacturers not based on a truly flawed vehicle design or manufacturing defect but based on the manufacturer's being held liable for the inherent danger of driving a vehicle on public roadways. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege comes with potentially fatal outcomes due to the nature of it (people make mistakes, shit happens, etc). The thought that you can eliminate this inherent danger or have the company that makes the product so that you can electively choose to drive be responsible for what's essentially Murphy's Law is absolutely abhorrent. It also has the potential to have a massive negative impact on the market because these businesses will start to reconsider what they produce and sell to consumers if they have to constantly worry about every single customer being a potential plaintiff in a case where the liability isn't something the company should bear.

 

[Torinate]

OMG somebody died in your thread??? Literally?

Unfortunately, yes...

https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/how-can-this-be.175282/

 

[cerbomark]

the other driver was only 1% at fault because the jury wanted deep pockets!!!
Civil and criminal are so different.

Sponsored