Just wanted to let you folks know that the California supreme court upheld the $290 millon verdict against Ford in the Bronco rollover case - it looks like it'll probably go the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's the link to the article:

http://www.auto.com/industry/ford24_20021024.htm

I hope the judgement gets overturned or at least reduced substantially...Ford really isn't in a financial position to deal with this sort of thing right now.

The thing that really annoys me is that I had a 1978 Bronco - and anyone with common sense would know the roof would collapse in a rollover. The vehicle weighed over 5000 pounds, and half the roof was fiberglass! If Ford's guilty about that one, what about my '72 Blazer where the entire roof was fiberglass? Where's that lawsuit? What about convertibles?

I see the article also mentions that there were 6 people in the car, and mine wasn't built to seat 6...did they ever make one with a front bench seat? I didn't think they did, because to get into the back you had the ejector passenger seat which flipped up and into the dash. If these were all adults (or close to it), I suspect that they were probably over the Bronco's GVWR - which would make the vehicle more likely to roll, though I doubt that was taken into account.

Funny how I managed to drive a '78 Bronco for years with a 6" lift, 35" tires, and a 400+ hp built V8, and never rolled it over...and they rolled over on the highway at 50mph.

Okay, I'd better stop before I launch into a full-blown rant...just wanted to share the info.

LK

 

"The thing that really annoys me is that I had a 1978 Bronco
and anyone with common sense would know the roof would
collapse in a rollover. "

This includes Ford. This is probably why they are in trouble...

 

I'm sure Ford did know the roof would collapse, but I don't think that makes Ford liable for the deaths that occurred - because the Bronco wasn't any more "dangerous" than many of the other vehicles out there at the time. Heck, my Blazer had significantly less roof structure than the Bronco, and the entire top was known to collapse in a rollover - but GM wasn't unlucky enough to get caught in this sort of lawsuit. And, luck (or the lack of it) is what it all comes down to with this sort of thing - if you mix a good lawyer with an accident that can stir a lot of jury sympathy, you end up with outrageous punitive damage awards like this one. Juries tend to do this sort of thing, which is why their awards are usually overturned or substantially reduced at appeal - but for some reason this one wasn't. Hopefully the Supreme Court will hear the case and get things straightened out...

What I can't understand is why these juries seem so shocked that automakers make tradeoffs between safety and profits - what do they really expect us to do? It isn't like you can make a perfectly safe car, so every time we build something we have to make tradeoffs in safety - it happens every day at all the major automakers (domestic or foreign). We have to estimate how much a given life is worth, and then use that number when we determine the feasibility of design changes and new features. That's simply the way the world works, no matter what people may wish to believe...the only way to have a safe car/truck is to not have one at all. This is the main goal of Nader and his cronies - everyone will be forced to use mass transportation to get everywhere, and those vehicles will be on dedicated roads or tracks and would probably be computer-controlled with about 10 different failsafe backup systems. Your commute to work will be safer, but your cars and trucks will be nothing but a fond memory. I might sound like I'm being a bit alarmist, but that's the way things will eventually become if this sort of lawsuit becomes commonplace.

LK

 

A local high school kid that lived by my went off the road last fall and was killed instantly due to the roof collapsing. He was driving a restored 1979 Bronco.

 

Watch out convertable makers, your next. What a load of horse dooky. So much for the Bronco comming back, and if it does so much for it comming back with a removable top. I hate these wimps that sue for stupid reasons.

 

It comes down to nobody wanting to take responsibility for their own actions. I rolled my bronco, my family died, it cant be my fault, couldnt sue the other motorist, ill sue a large corporation. Its their fault. This kind of actions could bring down corporate America. It make consumer goods more expensive.
Look at firestone, they were just as good as any other mfgr but they got caught with thier pants down. Now consumers are afraid of the product and dont want to risk endangering their lives. All because some idiots cant drive and remember to check their tire pressure.



Ranting

Tony Warren
Nebraska

 

IMHO there's a whole lot of idiocy like this that could totally be eliminated by the judges refusing to hear the cases in the first place. That would give trial lawyers a lesson in how common sense has nothing at all to do with GREED, and reduce the instance of jury members handing out monetary awards based on the idea of "feeling sorry" for the "victims" in some instances or being absolutely "clueless" about some of the agendas involved in others. No one likes to hear of people losing their lives in vehicular accidents, but I'll guarantee you if I have a "brain-fart" while driving my E-350 van and roll it over because I didn't have my "drivers" attitude working,that is paying attention to conditions all around me and not just holding on to the steering wheel, the responsibility will be mine. It certainly won't be that of the Ford motor company. I'll be interested to see how a rifle chambered for .223 rounds grabbed that "muhamed" jerk of the street and led him around montgomery county making him pull the trigger!

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 24-Oct-02 AT 11:45 PM (EST)]I too am after reading this. Were any trucks safe in the 70's? They were real trucks, work and off-road toys. Even cars weren't necessarily safe back then. Times have really changed and auto safety by 90's standards was MILES ahead of it in the 70's. It's one of the "downsides" of driving an old vehicle. This DOES NOT mean they are unsafe, but simply not as safe as today's cars and trucks.

And the amount of money they sued for :-X23

I hope this gets overturned. These fivalous lawsuits really need to stop! I also saw on www.auto.com today that someone is suing Dodge for there husband getting killed in a Ram when the door opened during an accident. There was also a story of an athlete who was in an accident in his Toyota Paseo at 30-40 mph that left him a quadrapalegic. He says the seat belt was a faulty design.

Ok, that's enough or my blood might boil over

 

What I would like to know is who is pushing this lawsuit? Their is a whole movement of anit-SUV zealots out here in the peoples republic of Kalifornia that think SUVs should be banned from the face of the earth. Of course they are backed up by the usual suspect like the Sierra club and a bunch of other earth first, screw your rights, f**k the constitution types. Lawsuits like this are their M.O. What they can't get though legislation they will try to get through litigation. They did it to the tobacco companies and are doing it to the gun makes. They know the auto makes are hurting right now, so now it a good time to try to put them out of business, or at least hurt them real bad.

 

acording to the lawers on the plantifs side, "We caught Ford committing garden-variety criminal homicide," said California attorney, Joe Carcione. "Ford knowingly put into the marketplace a vehicle they knew was unsafe. They rushed the 1978 and 1979 Bronco into the market without adequate protection in the roof."

I am not sure on this, but according to this site http://www.projectbronco.com/ "With nearly all of the problems worked out and all of the original requirements for the full-size Bronco now satisfied, the 1974 model year came and went, and STILL no full-size Bronco! Why wasn't it released on time? To answer this question, we have to understand what was going on in the world during this time. Beginning in 1973, the world suffered from the worst energy crisis ever experienced in modern times. Homes across the country started experiencing electrical brown outs and people had to pay ever-increasing prices for fuel for their automobiles. Price control systems that were implemented at the time only aggravated the problem, and by October of 1973 The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) implemented an oil embargo that nearly crippled the country. Everywhere people went there were lines at gas stations that were sometimes miles long and many times there was no gas left at the stations at all! It has been speculated by many that the onset of the 1973 OPEC oil embargo was by far the main reason that the introduction of the full-size Bronco was delayed until the 1978 model year. By 1977 the energy crisis had eased up and the first generation Broncos still being sold were terribly out dated by this time. Sales were sharply falling due to the extreme popularity of the much more modern and versatile Blazer. Ford also finally had a new, environmentally-friendly engine in use in its 4x4 trucks by 1977, the 351M/400, which could only mean one thing: The second-generation Bronco's time had finally come!"

So my question is did Ford really "knowingly put into the marketplace a vehicle they knew was unsafe. They rushed the 1978 and 1979 Bronco into the market without adequate protection in the roof."?

 

My previous response was not meant to justify the lawsuit. I actually take the conservative side on life...

I was simply trying to play devi's advocate and state why Ford is caught up in the lawsuit.

 

LK,
Hey, my buddy has a '78 Bronco that has a bench style seat in front. The back is split 50/50 and tilts down to get to the back seat. It has seatbelts in the middle, so I guess it's possible to fit 6 people in it... tightly...

I don't understand how people can get away with some of these lawsuits. What about when they made the Subaru Brat that had the seats in the bed? ...don't see any overhead protection there...

:-X23


Rob

 

Huh, I didn't know they made any with a front bench - I guess you learn something new every day. Some days I even learn more than one thing! I would think the front-bench Broncos would be pretty rare, as I don't think many came that way from the factory. I'm sure some Bronco-phile out there knows the exact number that came with a front bench, and I wonder if the Bronco in question had one. Thanks for the info...and I still miss that ol' Bronco.

Rob K. - sorry for getting a bit carried away on my response. Apparently you just did too good a job playing Devil's Advocate!

LK

 

There's something else involved. My 80 Bronco never came close to rolling. I pulled a 3500# Boat trailer through mountains with it too.

They arent telling us that some of the Heavier folks in that vehicle were not seated correctly. People never own up to the truth.

Maybe the side sway started, and some of the passengers started moving in self defence which accelerated the sway into a rollover.

At any Rate, that jury is the reason all our costs are going up.
Those grandiose settlements are killing us with the Insurance rates, and Doctors fees.
It just about killed General Aviation in the Product liability lawsuits.
I stopped thinking of some things I'd do for Old folks because of the lawsuits and the insurance increases.

 

I couldn't say any better what all you fine Ford folks have said already. That whole lawsuit is a joke. I think it is a sad state of affairs when people have to be told about all of these rollover warnings in the first place. It's about as dumb as the person that won the lawsuit for the hot coffee at Rotten Ronnie's Steak House(McDonald's). This should be an edition on John Stousell's (sp?) Give me a break. I can't believe that the whole case wasn't laughed right out of court. Was common sense somehow bred out of these people?