| Author | Message | ||
| DL (Darth550)
Member Username: Darth550 Post Number: 380 Registered: 7-2003 |
When I was a kid, my Best friend's father was one of the attorneys that represented Ford in the Pinto fire cases. He told me one day that Ford could have avoided the whole thing for less than $8.00 per car and chose not to! Talk about NEGLIGENCE!! DL | ||
| Hubert Otlik (Hugh)
Intermediate Member Username: Hugh Post Number: 1468 Registered: 1-2002 |
>>The roll-overs were caused by two issues: a top-heavy SUV (the Explorer), and a tendency for the Firestone tires used on the car to blow-out when underinflated. There is some argument over whether or not Firestone properly labeled the tires with the correct PSI.<< Nope. The fault lies in a Ford issued mandate to reduce tire pressure to absolve the issue of a driveline vibration which they didn't want to repair, since, if I recall, it was an inherant design flaw in the explorer drivetrain; therefore , Ford posted PSI's below the operating range of the tires to eliminate the vibration, hence causing the catastrophic failure and rollover. In my mind, in the case of Ford, the distinction b/w negligence, decit, callousness and gross-negligence is becoming hair thin; ultimatly, if there's a broad action taken against them, they may facethe same fate as tabacco compaines, and be made to pay out huge sums to "pay" for their negligence, callousness (to parapharse mr. hart) and knowingly marketing, selling and purveying (i.e., retailing) a product with and inherantly flawed design (i.e., a lethal product for consumer consumption). | ||
| DES (Sickspeed)
Senior Member Username: Sickspeed Post Number: 6700 Registered: 8-2002 |
DESquire, here, just wanted to chime in with my two cents... William, as far as your original post about Ford, it should be noted that no fine is equal to that of a human life... If so many people have died and have been injured, then there's a serious problem here... i don't think 50,000 people should lose their jobs just 'cause Ford's executive suits make bad calls, but they definitely need more than a fine here... DESquire, over and out. | ||
| MarkPDX (Markpdx)
Member Username: Markpdx Post Number: 828 Registered: 4-2003 |
FWIW There have been allegations that some of the testing was rigged. From MustangWorks
| ||
| Crusing (Crusing)
Junior Member Username: Crusing Post Number: 114 Registered: 10-2002 |
William: go for it. Challenge your professor, I always did when I was in law school. But make sure you have the facts down and have a well reasoned argument. You will gain the respect of your classmates and professor. Insurance is why other companies do not declare bankruptcy. I don't know why Firestone would either unless their insurance does not cover punitives. As you are learning there is a very good reason our tort system works the way it does, and in fact works much better than the statutory law system that has been implemented over the past 50 years. One thing that must be remembered is that at least 10 out of 12 juror must agree before an award of any kind is made. Juries are not groups of raving idiots. If you all knew how difficult it is to get any money out of juries these days you might not be so outraged when they finally do give some money. God forbid you or your family members ever are injured by the carelessness of another and try to get compensated for the way your life has been changed. The public becomes outraged over certain judgments but they have no idea of what the facts really were. I am as conservative as they come, however you must also be able to look at the system and realize what it takes to change behavior and the reason it is necessary to do so. | ||
| Mark (Markg)
Member Username: Markg Post Number: 610 Registered: 2-2001 |
http://www.crownvictoriasafetyalert.com/ | ||
| Sean F (Agracer)
Member Username: Agracer Post Number: 379 Registered: 2-2003 |
It was Chevy that had the gas tank issue, not Ford. And the money did little to change the design. It was the bad publicity from the lawsuit and the resultant lost $ales that caused the change more than anything. EDIT Chevy Trucks, not cars. Nebula took the words out of my mouth. Your proffessor is using a piece data to prove a point, but not giving you all the data. How many of those poeple were killed b/c the tires were under inflated, the car was drivng over the speed limit, the driver was drunk, asleep, etc. Art - interesting point about the taxes. A $1m judgement would result in $335K for the Attorny (after taxes - but not including expenses which would be deductable). But only $170k for the plantiff. Interesting. After it's all said and done the Govt. takes the most money and the Attny. and Plantiff probably end up with the same amount. Also, when did the fee's go to 50%? The number I've always heard is 30%-40%. | ||
| Mark (Markg)
Member Username: Markg Post Number: 609 Registered: 2-2001 |
WilliamH: Here is a good example of why sometimes punitive damages need to border on the Draconian: Ford knew it had a gas tank problem with the Pinto. Ford then compaired the cost of solving the probelm vs. a rough estamate of number of people who would likely be killed (burned alive) and what the averege wrongful death jury awards were at that time. Ford determined it would be cheaper to kill off and then pay off it's customers and their next of kin than to have a safe Pinto. What FcMoCo DIDN'T foresee was Jerry Spence...... Now Ford is cremating Police Officers with bad gas tanks in Crown Victoria's (over 30 so far) and of course the Explorer situation. But as long as its cheaper for companies to kill people than to build better products things wont change much. If CEOs and individual persons involved in making these decisions were held responsible (rather than the 'legal fiction' corporation absorbing the penalties) things would change. If the individuals who decided on cremation rather than .01 per share loss stood to loose their financial lives as a result of a suit, America would be a whole lot safer, with more reliable and better quality products. "& pure greed on the part of the lawyers"....its the pure greed of corporations who knowingley put profit before life that creates these types lawsuits. Look at it this way: who is the singularly most loved and treasured person in your life? Now, how much money would you take in exchange for that persons life? Say a 5% extra return on your S&P 500? $50 off on your next new car rather than have a known defect fixed? $25 off your next set of tires? There are WAY too many frivolous suits, but there are a handfull where the 'tortfeasor's actions are so egregious that almost no amount of damages can suffice. | ||
| Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member Username: Nebulaclass Post Number: 523 Registered: 11-2002 |
Art and William - The roll-overs were caused by two issues: a top-heavy SUV (the Explorer), and a tendency for the Firestone tires used on the car to blow-out when underinflated. There is some argument over whether or not Firestone properly labeled the tires with the correct PSI. It is a known fact that the most overlooked maintenance issue on cars is the tires. Most people wait until their Jiffy Lube guy points out that the tires have zero tread on them before they pay attention to them. Rarely are tires every checked for proper inflation by the owners. It may seems hard to believe for us car nuts, but most people assume that the tire needs no attention until it blows or is completely void of tread. In the Firestone/Explorer case, the problem came mainly from the owners of the SUVs never checking the tire pressure. A few months would go by, and the tire would naturally lose a few PSI of pressure. On the Explorer, for reasons I cannot recall, an underinflated tire would heat up considerably faster than on other vehicles (I think it had to do with the weight of the vehicle and the tire being used). This heat build up would eventually cause failure in the connection of the treads, causing the entire tread to fly off the tire (usually a front tire), which would cause a loss of control on the front axles, and the drivers would usually panic and waaaaay overcompensate by jerking the steering wheel around in hopes of regaining control. This erratic steering would result in a flipped Explorer. As far as I know, the fault lies mostly with Ford, because it was the responsibility of Ford to ensure that they used a tire that was marked for the correct inflation. Firestone is also at fault because of the tread separation issue, although the tires seem to work fine on all other vehicles. Finally, the people most at fault are the drivers. Ignorance is never an excuse, and just about every test (except those perfromed by the trial lawyers representing the plaintiffs) showed that underinflation due to lack of tire maintenance was the main reason why the tires failed. In the US, however, the consumers are rarely blamed for accidents that could have been prevented with careful use. For whatever it's worth, I think that Ford needs to be punished for not testing the tire/Exporer combo enough to find this fault, Firestone for allowing the tire to be used on the Explorer, and the rest of the US needs to wake up and start checking their tire pressure! | ||
| Mfennell70 (Mfennell70)
Junior Member Username: Mfennell70 Post Number: 168 Registered: 7-2001 |
Do you think it was the damages paid out or the negative publicity that caused the change of heart? Regardless, the flip-o-matic Bronco II that came out some years later suggests Ford didn't learn their lesson all that well. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2653 Registered: 6-2001 |
Wm: I'd take a slightly different approach: I'd ask him to show where Firestone had put these defective pieces into the stream of commerce, and did they have actual notice of that defect. As I understand the facts, apparently these tires only had roll over problems with Ford products. Perhaps the product was slightly defective, i.e., had to be carefully maintained in order to work properly, but they (the product) shouldn't have been dangerous but for the Ford Explorer, which had a tendancy to roll over when the tires deflated. Knowledge of that specific would be essential for an award of punitive damages. Art | ||
| Dale W Spradling (Drtax)
Member Username: Drtax Post Number: 409 Registered: 4-2003 |
William, your call. The great ones actually enjoy a challenge. The rest well... Good luck and let us know what happens. Dale | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3216 Registered: 2-2001 |
I'm not going to challenge him in any sort of disrespectful way. I just plan on telling him & the entire class that a party is not entitled to bankrupt & disemploy 50,000 people & put 200,000 people in a bad financial situation bcus 141 people were killed. Then I'm going to tell him what Art said about the legal precedent that courts are not allowed to bankrupt a Co & that Firestone is a noble Co that has been making a staple commodity that all ammericans use for almost 100 years. They dont make Mac10 machine guns for street thugs, they dont make date rape drugs, or chemical weapons or torture animals. They just make & sell tires. So if people died bcus of their product it was totally an innocnet accident. | ||
| Dale W Spradling (Drtax)
Member Username: Drtax Post Number: 407 Registered: 4-2003 |
William, I want to applaud you for seeing through your professor's bs. Who would have ever thought that we'd see the day when the true subversives on campus are conservatives, or should I say people who look at the world through a realistic lens. HW, I must caution you against challenging your professor. As a first-year law student, your objective should be to make the highest possible grades. Sadly, most professors, particuarly the mediocre ones, love the sound of their own words. Even worse, the most logical argument will not change their minds because thier views were set in concrete a long time ago. Any challenge to their "jackboot mentality" will be seen as a threat. So, keep the faith and bide your time. Your day will surely come. Good luck. Dale | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2648 Registered: 6-2001 |
This is an interesting subject: the issue of Punitive damages was recently covered in a Supreme Court Decision this term (for the life of me, I can't find the cite). In that decision, the court held that where the compensatory damages were significant, that a multiple of 10 would be pretty much the limit on punitive damages. I strongly disagree: When you have a very large company, one with a lot of net worth, the punishment damages must punish them. That is the theory of deteriance (sp). The case against Ford for the gas tanks caused them to take notice and listen. If the award had been for say 2, 3 million, it wouldn't have caused a behavior change, which is exactly what these damages are designed to effect. The standard argument is that these unjustly enrich the Plaitniff. That however isn't the case, because of how the IRS deals with these awards: They are taxed on the entire award, with no deduction for attorney's fees. Effectively, that means that since the lawyer usually takes 50% of the award, and the effective tax rate is 66% on the remaining balance, the federal government gets approximately 83% of the award. the effect of that makes these awards a governmental fine, not one that enriches the Plaintiff, who has already been awarded compensatory damages. For those of you who are into taxation, the reason for the double taxation is the application of the Alternative minimum tax law, which does not allow a deduction for attorney's fees, etc. I have the specific case somewhere, but couldn't find it on a Sunday (I'm still in trial). Art | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2647 Registered: 6-2001 |
William: The seminole case in California is Adams v. Murakami (1991) [54 Cal.3d 105] Art | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3196 Registered: 2-2001 |
Art, do you have some specific cases where the Judges held that they would not fine the Co so much as to bankrupt them ? Thanks | ||
| Frank Wiedmann (Frankieferrari)
Member Username: Frankieferrari Post Number: 373 Registered: 8-2003 |
William. I have another point to make,a question,really. Maybe a good subject to discuss in class-? Why do everyday,regular people feel that way,(like I described in my previous post),that if you are Rich,Famous or Powerful,or "connected", in this great country of ours that you can pretty much be guaranteed to "get off the hook",or "get off easy". Sure,they pay alot more for their legal representation. But,should that really matter? I dont think so. Everyday,I am sure that some poor slob,who either hires an inexpensive,inadequete attorney,that barely skated through law school.(I know that they have to pass the bar exams) Or an inexperienced public defender, and is innocent,but gets thrown in the slammer anyway,because of poor defense. And super aggressive prosecutors who "out maneuver" the defense. I mean,you see it on the TV news every single day. They make a really big deal about prosecuting some rich,powerful person,and they get off with a slap on the wrist. And,if they even do serve any time,it's always at some,low security,"Country Club" type "prison". And told in "months", not years. And when they get out,all of their fortune is there waitng for them. And,you also see,all the time about some poor guy who had inadeqete defense,and served 10,20 YEARS in prison,and it's found out that they WERE innocent all along. I dont think it's just me who feels like this either. There is a great disparity in our legal system. Plea bargains,payoffs(and you cannot tell me that that doesn't happen) A general lack of respect for our legal system(disappointment,maybe?) in general,because it's been like this for so long. In general,and as a whole,and on a daily basis,the system DOES work. But,when you hear about these high profile cases,people are generally complacent,because they already know the out come...probably going to get off,or get off with a slap on the wrist. And I really don't think that our constitution intended it to be this way. But IT IS! Happens every,single day. Why? Hey,just a point to ponder. THANKS, and Good luck in school. | ||
| Frank Wiedmann (Frankieferrari)
Member Username: Frankieferrari Post Number: 372 Registered: 8-2003 |
The problem is that in our society. Those with money and power usually buy their way out,and get off with a slap on the wrist. And,if they have to pay any fines,they will pass that along to consumers,through pricing,and it gets covered. No,they shouldn't ruin the lives of the innocent employees.Definitely not. But,they should ruin the lives of all those greedy,over paid hot shot executives. Fine THEM SO MUCH MONEY that they DO lose all their Property,Cars,Bank accounts,Portfolios,etc... Make it so bad for THEM that they have to move into a crappy little bugalow,and drive a Civic. Now THAT would be fair and JUST! Humble them SO BAD that they WILL NEVER let GREEEEEED get the best of them again! | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3192 Registered: 2-2001 |
Thanks Whart & Art for professional opinions. I will do some research on the avenues you have opened up. I will be going into trusts, wills & estates, I'd like to do some human rights law also. By the way , are all 86 FRCP rules on the bar exam ? I hate civil pro even more now | ||
| Dr. I. M. Ibrahim (Coachi)
Member Username: Coachi Post Number: 421 Registered: 5-2002 |
I am not a lawyer (though my son is..) my 2 c worth...you need to punish those who are responsible for the deaths due to negligence and greed. Not the entire company and its population. | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2643 Registered: 6-2001 |
William: I don't know if shutting the company down is the right thing to do. I do know that if they continue to put defective products into the stream of commerce, knowing such products were defective, then maybe management needs an attitude adjustment, perhaps taking away their toys. While its a great concept to say that we shouldn't punish the company, exactly how do you propose to ensure that their behavior remains the same? we keep track of our economics by counting our money. To punish them, we take their money away, the term is punitive damages, i.e., those damages which are levied as punishment. Those damages should not be so large as to break the company, but large enough to cause them to modify their behavior (look up the case law, all the cases say that you can't use those damages to destroy the company). On the other hand,those that were injuried from the defective product need adequate compensation. If the bread winner in the family is dead as a result, the family needs, as best we can, compensation for that. Those numbers can and probably should be significant. That isn't punishment, but a way of making things right for those who, without fault on their part, have been injured. By the way, if a client walks into your office with this case, sent them to me, if you are unwilling to represent them. Art | ||
| wm hart (Whart)
Intermediate Member Username: Whart Post Number: 1655 Registered: 12-2001 |
Willie: if you study the history of products liablity and tort law generally, you will see that the law tolerates and to some degree protects a socially beneficial product or service nothwithstanding risk; ie, the early cases involving grade crossing accidents were at one time more often won by the railroads than today. My suspicion is that most airline disasters do implicate the manufacturer, but since i don't do "mass tort" work, i cannot speak from direct experience; however, most of those cases seem to settle. When it goes beyond simple negligence, and you have executives making deliberate decisions not to install a $2 upgrade, even though it would better protect the public, you get into arguments about callousness and venality. But, businesses typically work that way; virtually every product can be improved at some cost, and in retrospect, it may seem harsh to market death on a cost/benefit basis. The more egregious examples, involving exploding gas tanks, and the like, seem to be relatively rare. As to the politics of law professors, in my field, at least, the vast majority are "copyleft" folks who promote a sort of communism; the media companies are fat rich and brainless; its ok to steal from them because, well, the user is "entitled." The current debate involving file sharing is just one illustration. As to showing the client with a company busting case the door, that's not usually how the system works, as you know. Even if it is only greed, or a sense of vindication for the victim plus handsome compensation for the lawyer, most practicing lawyers, posed with the question, would, i think, take such a case unless they had a conflict of interest or ethical concerns about the merits of the case (assuming their practice permits contingency work). | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3188 Registered: 2-2001 |
I wonder if most lawyers are left or right wingers ? I met 1 hard Left who wants to redistribute wealth in the US. Just a comment for him, Chairman Mao tried that in Communist China, it didnt work there either | ||
| Kds (Kds)
Junior Member Username: Kds Post Number: 218 Registered: 5-2003 |
William....I am not a lawyer but I wanted to comment if that's OK. Welcome to the only refuge of leftists.......university campuses where they can spew their level of idiocy with relative impunity from students. | ||
| William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member Username: Countachxx Post Number: 3185 Registered: 2-2001 |
Thanks for taking a peek. We are covering the Firestone case in class & the Prof is stating that because 141 people were killed & 400 seriousely injured, & 1000 moderately injured that this justifies bankrupting Firestone & putting their 50,000 or so employees on the street & shutting down a noble company that has served the world for the better part of a century. I have SERIOUS ethical issues with this & I plan on telling him this next week in class. Yes its tragic that 141 people died & more were injured. So you fine Firestone & you find the engineers, designers who designed the tire poorly & you find the accountants who purchased 2nd rate materials & you fire all of them. You Do NOT fire 50,000 employees. I see this as pure vengance on the part of the injured & pure greed on the part of the lawyers I mean every time a passenger jet crashes we lose 100 people + & nobody has talked about shutting down American, United, or Boeing. Firestone is not an evil Co. They dont make Mac 10 machine guns for drug dealers, they dont torture animals, make fur coats, employ slaves or children in Asia. All they do is make tires for cars & trucks which the US market needs. I find what this prof is proposing to be a great miscarraige of justice. I will tell him that if a client walked into my office iwth this case I would show them the door. Now that Ive vented, can I get some input from the Pros ? Thanks |
