Blog Topic

Appellate Court Sticks to Ford Decision
March 12, 2008

Ford's once proud history and reputation as the country's first automaker has rapidly degenerated into one of a greedy corporation for whom responsibility and accountability are both very alien concepts. Thankfully, however, many of Ford's manufacturing and design misdemeanors are catching up with it. The bad times continue to roll at the company, and each time a court rules against the automaker, it's a small victory for consumer rights and safety.

The company received a big blow on Monday when a California appellate court stood by its earlier decision to award a sum of $82.6 million in damages to a woman who was left paraplegic after an accident involving a Ford vehicle.

The accident, which injured Bennetta Buell Wilson, occurred on January 19, 2002, when her Ford Explorer fishtailed as she tried to avoid a metal object. The SUV - as Ford's Explorers tend to do on a mundane basis - rolled over four times before coming to a stop upside down. Buell Wilson, a mother of two, was left paraplegic.

At the trial, her lawyers argued that the Explorer's design defects could be traced back to the Bronco II, and alleged that management at Ford chose to ignore the risks. Jury members were impressed enough with the evidence to hand Buell Wilson a sum of $368 million, of which $246 million were in the form of punitive damages. That huge amount was reduced by the 4th District Court of Appeals in San Diego to $82. 6 million, although the jurors seemed to agree that Ford had made use of faulty cost cutting measures, which resulted in the design flaws.

The California Supreme Court denied review, but the US Supreme Court remanded it to the appellate court. On Monday, the Appellate court stood by its decision. It was surprising since the US Supreme Court had asked the appellate court to review its decision based on the Philips Morris vs Williams ruling. According to that ruling, jurors cannot punish defendants for harm to third parties when deciding punitive damages. In its decision on Monday, the appellate court gave several reasons why the Philip Morris ruling didn't apply to this case. Ford, according to the appellate court, had submitted misleading jury instructions at the trial, and did not object in a timely manner in Buell Wilson's closing arguments during the punitive damages phase. It also said that Ford did not request a limiting instruction during the liability phase, and didn't raise instructional error on appeal.

Ford's attorney said they would seek further review, and objected to the ruling saying that it was inconsistent with the US Supreme Court's ruling, and with the ruling in the Philip Morris case.

Buell Wilson's attorneys claimed that the victory would force automakers to make modifications to their vehicles to make them safer.

In this case, Ford seemed to have made some very expensive cost cutting decisions in connection with their vehicles, which is what caused the design defect. Buell Wilson's accident is yet another example of Ford's compete disregard for the safety of its customers - customers, we might add, who pay top dollar for the privilege of driving a vehicle that has a tendency to flip over like a tin can at the slightest jolt. How this company is still allowed to put vehicles out on the road after all the deaths and catastrophic injuries its vehicles have caused is unfathomable. Profits come before all else at Ford, and every last cost-cutting avenue is explored, regardless of the effect on the vehicles. More such damaging awards should be able to convince Ford that its old policies of cutting corners to boost profits are leading the company to certain ruin.

If you have been injured in an accident, you need the help of an experienced California personal injury attorney.  Contact a lawyer at The Reeves Law Group for a free consulation. 

Permalink