The moody's that is.
http://www.kjrh.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=8db0fa14-1d78-43a1-930e-a0a0638f22e3
I'm freaking glad this case was overturned, but there never should have been one to begin with. Must be sad to try to profit off your sons death[xx(]
I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.
A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.
A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.
If toro doesn't have a warning label... you might have a better case than the moody's, but I think they suggest wearing goggles[:D]
I know there is a warning that lawn mowers should only be used on the ground.
Every time you read a warning, you know that at least one person has done that.
On a blanket from Taiwan:
Not to be used as protection from a tornado.
Warning on fireplace log:
Caution -- Risk of Fire.
A warning on a pair of shin guards manufactured for bicyclists:
Shin pads cannot protect any part of the body they do not cover.
Warning on an electric router made for carpenters:
This product not intended for use as a dental drill.
On a bottle of shampoo for dogs:
Caution: The contents of this bottle should not be fed to fish.
On a hair dryer:
Do not use in shower.
On Marks & Spencer bread pudding
Product will be hot after heating.
On a string of Chinese made Christmas lights:
For indoor or outdoor use only.
On Sainsbury's peanuts:
Warning: Contains nuts.
On an American Airlines packet of nuts:
Instructions - open packet, eat nuts.
On some frozen dinners:
Serving suggestion: defrost.
On a hotel provided shower cap:
Fits one head.
On Nytol Nighttime Sleep-Aid:
Warning: May cause drowsiness.
Warning on a cartridge for a laser printer:
Do not eat toner.
Can of self-defense pepper spray warns:
May irritate eyes.
Warning on a Conair Pro Style 1600 hair dryer:
Do not use in shower. Never use while sleeping.
Silly Putty package warning:
Not for use as earplugs.
On a bag of Fritos:
You could be a winner! No purchase necessary. Details inside.
Baby stroller warning:
Remove child before folding.
Household iron warns:
Never iron clothes while they are being worn.
A fireplace lighter cautions:
Do not use near fire, flame or sparks.
A handheld massager warns consumers:
Don't use while sleeping or unconscious.
Warning on underarm deodorant:
Do not spray in eyes.
Cardboard car sun shield that keeps sun off the dashboards warns
Do not drive with sun shield in place
Warning on a sharpening stone:
Knives are sharp.
Bottle water label warns:
Twist top off with hands. Throw top away. Do not put top in mouth.
On a box or rat poison
Warning: Has been found to cause cancer in laboratory mice.
On a Domino's Pizza box
Caution: Contents hot!
Toilet bowl cleaning brush warns:
Do not use orally.
An electric cattle prods warns:
For use on animals only
A can of air freshner warns:
Keep out of reach of children and teenagers
Cheap rubber ball toy warning:
Choking hazard: This toy is a small ball.
Caution on a package of dice:
Not for human consumption.
In the manual of a chainsaw:
Do not attempt to stop the blade with your hand.
Stamped on the barrel of a .22 calibre rifle:
Warning: Misuse may cause injury or death.
Instructions for an electric thermometer:
Do not use orally after using rectally.
On the wrapper of a Fruit Roll-Up snack:
Remove plastic before eating.
A TV remote controller warns:
Not dishwasher safe.
The passenger in Tyler's Explorer lived across the street from me at the time. He was pretty shell-shocked by the whole thing and escaped with only a scratch on his arm. It was a very sad deal. There was a similar crash 20 years before that with two other Jenks cross country atheletes where the driver was killed and the passenger survived.
Seeing a $15mm award with another $3.3mm in interest tacked on means that we all wind up paying more for the next new vehicle we buy because someone had a 30 second lapse of judgement.
As I recall, his speed was estimated at 80 MPH when he went to pass the vehicle in front of him going into the curve at 121st & Delaware. Vehicles are dangerous and deadly when they are not used as they are intended. It irks me to wind up paying for other people's mistakes.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
On a blanket from Taiwan:
Not to be used as protection from a tornado.
Warning on fireplace log:
Caution -- Risk of Fire.
Some of those are a riot. Thank you for the great laugh. How about simpler labeling: "Warning, not to be used by stupid people"
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.
A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.
+1
I thought the case was about how well an occupant is (or is not) protected in a rollover, and that there were minimum safety standards Ford was expected to adhere to (that they may not have).
quote:
Originally posted by patric
I thought the case was about how well an occupant is (or is not) protected in a rollover, and that there were minimum safety standards Ford was expected to adhere to (that they may not have).
I'm trying not to post and i don't know all the details of this case, but I have some relevant info on Ford non passenger rated vehicles.
Back in the 80's, a friend of mine who was a private investigator was hired to do physical research at auto salvages of roll-over truck accidents. Seems the client had been a passenger in one and was killed. When it rolled over, the stress on the cab roof popped out the rear window and ejected the passenger through it. Ford refused to pay anything as the accident was driver error and no seat belts were in use. Until 1978 seat belts weren't required in vans and trucks.
However, Ford neglected to reveal that while all the other truck manufacturers were using metal cab roofs with reinforced pillars, Ford had opted to save a little money by using unreinforced composite materials which flexed under pressure popping out the windows. Subsequent research showed that occupants of Ford trucks in rollovers were more likeley to be seriously injured. Ford knew that but fought every one of the cases rather than change the design. There were even former Ford engineers who travelled the country serving as expert witnesses in these cases as they had warned Ford of the weakness. Unless ownership/management has drastically changed there I would guess they still cut corners.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I am guessing it is more a case of not accepting your child's death was his own fault. You want to blame someone.
A manufacturer should only be liable for the design of the car in relation to intended and normal use. If I use a weedeater to shave, I don't assume I can sure toro when I lose an eye.
I actually remember in the manual that came with my new lawnmower on the long list of "warnings" there was one that said. Do not use to cut your hair. A lawnmower!
The crux of the case was indeed that the vehicle failed to meet the minimum safety standards and that if it had, the kid would still be alive.
If both of those are true, Ford may be liable (unless the attorney has the case overturned because of gross misconduct).
quote:
Originally posted by patric
I thought the case was about how well an occupant is (or is not) protected in a rollover, and that there were minimum safety standards Ford was expected to adhere to (that they may not have).
It is, and ford has had problems with this area for years which makes them an easy target, however if a car was designed to roll over at double posted speed and leave everyone unharmed, it would weigh about 3 tons and look like a burrito.
I don't recall where I'd heard it, but I believe there has been some litigation toward FOMOCO ever since they bought Volvo. I believe it centered around them owning a company with safer technology they could integrate into the Ford product line.
I totally understand liability if a vehicle catches fire due to a flaw in manufacture, a hub breaks on a new vehicle and causes a crash, etc. that a car company could be liable. But suing a car company for a failure which happened whilst going over twice the posted speed around a corner sounds frivolous to me.
Ostensibly, all of Ford's products have to undergo government-mandated crash and roll-over tests. Why not just sue the Fed'l Gov't for not requiring NASCAR-type roll cages in every vehicle on the road?
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It is, and ford has had problems with this area for years which makes them an easy target, however if a car was designed to roll over at double posted speed and leave everyone unharmed, it would weigh about 3 tons and look like a burrito.
Oh, you mean one of these...?
(http://www.limos4sale.com/220hummerside.gif)
Hmmm...
"I'd like your Hummer Limo lunch special covered in queso with beans and rice, please..." [;)]
"Sometimes you feel like a nice long Hummer."
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
It is, and ford has had problems with this area for years which makes them an easy target, however if a car was designed to roll over at double posted speed and leave everyone unharmed, it would weigh about 3 tons and look like a burrito.
Oh, you mean one of these...?
(http://www.limos4sale.com/220hummerside.gif)
Hmmm... "I'd like your Hummer Limo lunch special covered in queso with beans and rice, please..." [;)]
This post makes me want Las Americas #56 (Golden Burrito Grande) right now...
In reality, I'm not sure that thing could roll over at 25 without busting in half.
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/wesley58_do/Dowers756.jpg)
that is a burrito[}:)]
Los Girasoles in BA for 6.50
quote:
Originally posted by unknown
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y125/wesley58_do/Dowers756.jpg)
that is a burrito[}:)]
Los Girasoles in BA for 6.50
Mmm....
quote:
Moody lost control of a 1995 Ford Explorer Sport while he was passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a curve, according to a Nov. 14 court order by Eagan. The SUV left the road and rolled at least 1 1/2 times, coming to rest on its roof.
What an idiot.
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
quote:
Moody lost control of a 1995 Ford Explorer Sport while he was passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a curve, according to a Nov. 14 court order by Eagan. The SUV left the road and rolled at least 1 1/2 times, coming to rest on its roof.
What an idiot.
But it's all Ford Motor Company's fault, at least according to Clark Brewster.
and according to Clark Brewster its ok to intimidate witnesses to get the Penis Pump judge off. The grapevine also tells me he thinks its ok to keep a small harem of young women on the payroll for recreational purposes. But he is good at what he does...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
and according to Clark Brewster its ok to intimidate witnesses to get the Penis Pump judge off. The grapevine also tells me he thinks its ok to keep a small harem of young women on the payroll for recreational purposes. But he is good at what he does...
That was one time Judge Thompson didn't get off in court.[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I know there is a warning that lawn mowers should only be used on the ground.
Every time you read a warning, you know that at least one person has done that.
I think the condescending warnings are put one certain products so greedy lawyers and stupid idiots won't be able to sue.Everyone remembers the old lady who sued McDonalds because she thought it is was a great idea to stick a cup of hot liquid between her legs
quote:
Moody lost control of a 1995 Ford Explorer Sport while he was passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a curve, according to a Nov. 14 court order by Eagan. The SUV left the road and rolled at least 1 1/2 times, coming to rest on its roof.
I think people are having a tough time distinguishing between the negligence that resulted in a wreck, and the negligence that resulted in a death from what should have been a survivable wreck.
jamesrage wrote:
Everyone remembers the old lady who sued McDonalds because she thought it is was a great idea to stick a cup of hot liquid between her legs
<end clip>
It wasn't just a frivolous lawsuit. McDonald's was setting its coffee temperatures at an eye-popping 195 to 200 degrees. Combine that with the flimsy cups that couldn't take such temperatures, there were hundreds of serious burning incidents across the country because of this.
You need to find a better strawman than that.
No one ever seem to care about the details on that one rwarn. 3rd degree genital burns are no fun at all.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Moody lost control of a 1995 Ford Explorer Sport while he was passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a curve, according to a Nov. 14 court order by Eagan. The SUV left the road and rolled at least 1 1/2 times, coming to rest on its roof.
I think people are having a tough time distinguishing between the negligence that resulted in a wreck, and the negligence that resulted in a death from what should have been a survivable wreck.
I absolutely do have a tough time distinguishing it. There are so many analogies I could use to prove the idiocy of this lawsuit my mind is being blown right now.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Moody lost control of a 1995 Ford Explorer Sport while he was passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a curve, according to a Nov. 14 court order by Eagan. The SUV left the road and rolled at least 1 1/2 times, coming to rest on its roof.
I think people are having a tough time distinguishing between the negligence that resulted in a wreck, and the negligence that resulted in a death from what should have been a survivable wreck.
Most vehicles which are driven at 80 mph around sharp curves are constructed with roll bars or full roll cages and aren't used on city streets.
What is a reasonable expectation to have of auto manufacturers in regards to safety, production, and marketability? We all want safe cars, but who is willing or able to spend the kind of money it would take to have a car which can survive 90% of all potential crash situations on a public road? I have yet to see a hybrid car out there which doesn't look like a rolling coffin.
Who is to say what is and isn't survivable in every case? People have survived wrecks that would have generated 40g's and others have died in less severe wrecks.
Tyler had to have known there could be potential consequences to driving that fast and he could be driving beyond the limitations of that vehicle's safe design. At the time the wreck happened there had been plenty of publicity about SUV roll-overs.
Tyler's passenger, Brett, told me after the crash that when the Explorer started to go off the road, he remembered something his soccer coach had told his team a day or so after the coach had been involved in a roll-over in an SUV: "If it ever happens to you, duck!" That's what he did and he walked away with a scratch on his arm. Tyler was fighting to save the vehicle, he really didn't have that option.
Tyler's parents certainly had the money to buy him a safer vehicle. He had this Explorer Sport after the whole tire scare which was causing roll-overs after blow-outs on Explorers and all the Dateline NBC roll-over tests on skid pads had been re-run to death. IOW- there was enough data and publicity out there at the time to know that SUV's are not the safest vehicle to be in when you are in a quick manuever due to the high center of gravity.
I hate it for the Moodys, they were devastated. Tyler was a model student, a fine young man, and ostensibly a son anyone would be proud to have. But I turn callous when they think I and all other future buyers of Ford products (that's all I've personally owned for the last 17 years) should have to shoulder the cost of Tyler's 30 second lapse of judgement.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
It wasn't just a frivolous lawsuit. McDonald's was setting its coffee temperatures at an eye-popping 195 to 200 degrees. Combine that with the flimsy cups that couldn't take such temperatures, there were hundreds of serious burning incidents across the country because of this.
You need to find a better strawman than that.
According the national coffee association the best coffee is brewed at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction and that when the brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately.
http://www.ncausa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=71
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction. Colder water will result in flat, underextracted coffee while water that is too hot will also cause a loss of quality in the taste of the coffee.
snip...
Brewed coffee should be enjoyed immediately!
Pour it into a warmed mug or coffee cup so that it will maintain its temperature as long as possible. Brewed coffee begins to lose its optimal taste moments after brewing so only brew as much coffee as will be consumed immediately. If it will be a few minutes before it will be served, the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
In Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants case they claim the coffee was around 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit,which is what the temperature the national coffee association says is acceptable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald's_coffee_case
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is one of those cases where some retard does something stupid due to their own ignorance or negligence and they expect the company to make them rich.That judge should have thrown that old lady and her rat lawyer out on their asses and slapped them with a huge fine for trying to waste tax payer time and money.Lawsuits like these only encourage more people to be idiots.Everybody and their mom knows coffee is hot,it is supposed to be hot,no one in their right mind is going to put a hot cup of liquid in between their legs because of the fact coffee is hot and hot liquids have a tendency to burn.
I've always shaken my head at the McDonald's lawsuit. Any idot knows not to drive with coffee between their legs, if not for the temp, how about a nice brown stain between your legs.
Personally, I don't care for my coffee to be 180-185 F when it is served, that's just too friggin hot for my tongue.
quote:
Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.
In the above reference, he is talking about allegedly extending the time from 12 seconds to 20. Liebeck didn't remove the coffee for a minute and a half.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns.
In the above reference, he is talking about allegedly extending the time from 12 seconds to 20. Liebeck didn't remove the coffee for a minute and a half.
That is another good point.
I have never been an advocate of the
funky seat belt used in standard
automobiles and trucks.
Added to the blast from the Air Bag that increases your lack of ability to
move away from the top of the
vehicle crushing in ontop of your head
in most rollovers.
As I have stated before, my friends
that own wrecker services have dozens
of illustrations of how the funky
seatbelt/air bag systems with little
or no type of roll bar used overhead
in today's vehicles, adds to the
possibilty of a fatality.
Seen many scalps in the upper door
jams of passenger cars.
I would have to side with the plaitiff
in this case. No protection from
rollover, with the requirement by law
of use of the seatbelt is a recipe for disaster.
Regardless of the cause of the accident,
the after effect is what is on trial.
I submit the majority of people that have driven for a few months have experienced situations in traffic where an accident
similar to this one could of or may have occured.
Most people that have driven a Ford
Exploder, or other top heavy SUVs, that
have a few years experience and have
driven other much better handling
vehicles know the majority of SUVs are
ill Handling to say the least. They are
poorly designed and are prone to rollovers. Period Dot.
Buckled into that type of vehicle with inadequate overhead protection is
like being strapped into a top heavy,
narrow wheel base open wheel racecar
with no roll cage. Much better off with
no restraints so you can duck and roll
as Go Kart riders do in a roll over.
Strapped in place held back by the
lap/chest belt you are unable to move,
and are a sitting duck.
Next thing you know they will be
wanting to create laws that require
seat belts on motorcycles.
Build a vehicle with funky seat belts,
top heavy center of gravity, with
inadequate protection from rollovers
and you most likely will loose at trial.
Any juror or person that does not
agree that SUVs and especially
Ford Exploders do not roll over easy
and do provide adequate protection from crushing the passengers, jump in a
Ford Exploder and go out on a closed
course and roll that puppy at any speed.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
quote:
Moody lost control of a 1995 Ford Explorer Sport while he was passing another vehicle in a no-passing zone on a curve, according to a Nov. 14 court order by Eagan. The SUV left the road and rolled at least 1 1/2 times, coming to rest on its roof.
I think people are having a tough time distinguishing between the negligence that resulted in a wreck, and the negligence that resulted in a death from what should have been a survivable wreck.
Well said. Your insights will not serve you well here though. As a survivor of a roll over at high speed, I can tell you the difference between a well designed and built car and one built to make the mfr. huge amounts of money is the difference between life and death.
In Oklahoma I remember there being some sort of shared liability built into the law. Contributory negligence I believe. Is that still in play? That would have allowed a dimunution of damages based on how much of the fault the driver shared. It would be seriously unfair for Ford to skate on their negligence based on the arguments that "anyone should know our product is poorly designed and will kill you when you screw up". Kind of takes tough love to a new level.