Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ford can deny its cars to sheriff, judge rules
St Petersburg Times ^ | 09/29/2004 | Associated Press

Posted on 10/01/2004 6:50:09 PM PDT by DeepInEnemyTerritory

SHALIMAR - Ford Motor Co. can refuse to sell police cars to Florida law enforcement agencies that join a lawsuit against the automaker over fuel tank fires, a judge has ruled.

Circuit Judge G. Robert Barron denied Okaloosa County Sheriff Charlie Morris' request that he order Ford to resume selling cars to his department Monday. Ford has refused to sell Crown Victoria interceptors to Morris since July 2003, a year after he sued.

The suit claims the full-size, V-8-powered, four-door sedans have exploded in flames when struck from behind at high speed, in some cases killing officers. It blames poor design.

Barron last month granted class action status, permitting other Florida law enforcement agencies to join the lawsuit. No deadline for joining has been set.

With Barron's ruling in hand, Ford also will refuse to sell the cars to any other agency that participates in the suit, said company lawyer David Cannella.

"It's fundamentally illogical for Sheriff Morris to, on one hand, sue us and, on the other hand, seek the court to order (Ford) to sell him more vehicles," he said.

An attorney for Morris, Don Barrett, has said that although the sheriff views the Ford interceptors as defective, he wants to buy new ones to replace aging cars because seeking other vehicles would be more costly.

Morris' lawyers say there have been 14 accidents nationwide in which Ford interceptors caught fire after being rear-ended. Ford attorneys say that represents 0.01 percent of its interceptors on the road - none of them Morris' cars.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: automakers; ford; lawsuit; leo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last
If the Crown Victoria has not been redesigned to correct this problem then I agree with Ford.
1 posted on 10/01/2004 6:50:10 PM PDT by DeepInEnemyTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

there is no way to totally protect a gas tank from catching fire in a accident. if there issufficient force then the tank will rupture and gas will burn. everyone in this country has become sue happy then whine that everything cost so much.


2 posted on 10/01/2004 6:54:49 PM PDT by go star go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory
LEAs can't have it both ways - either the cars are dangerous, or they are not.

If they aren't dangerous, then they should not be suing the manufacturer.

If they are dangerous, then they should not be buying them.

3 posted on 10/01/2004 6:56:46 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

They're talking about Crown Vics that are rear-ended on the side of the road by people doing 70+. Many of the accidents are at 80+.

How, exactly, is it *assumed* that this should be a survivable accident? This is going to be a catastrophic event regardless of any "design" problem.


4 posted on 10/01/2004 7:00:21 PM PDT by Ramius (Time? What time do you think we have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

Ford can choose who to deal with.


5 posted on 10/01/2004 7:01:04 PM PDT by stands2reason (Limousine Liberal--a man who has his cake, eats his cake, and complains that other people have cake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

"Hey, my car got hit by a Hellfire missile and exploded into flames! It's defective!"


6 posted on 10/01/2004 7:02:52 PM PDT by Poohbah (If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

Too bad gun manufacturers don't do the same thing.


7 posted on 10/01/2004 7:06:05 PM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory
Politics aside, Ford is the worst OEM to work with from a suppliers perspective. They care only about cost not quality. Ford will unethically shop a suppliers proprietary technology around to the lowest bidder, typically a sell out to China.
8 posted on 10/01/2004 7:07:44 PM PDT by Moleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

On what legal theory would someone even attempt to force a company to do business with another entity by court order???


9 posted on 10/01/2004 7:09:41 PM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

hehehe... zactly.

This is a classic case of lying statistics. Crown Vics show a huge number of fatalities and fires from rear-enders. Well... duh... cops are the most likely to be on the roadside, and always in back of another car, and they are on the shoulder of freeways where other traffic is travelling at high speeds.


10 posted on 10/01/2004 7:09:59 PM PDT by Ramius (Time? What time do you think we have?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

I predict the Sheriff will now claim an addiction to Crown Vics and submit paperwork for disability pay.


11 posted on 10/01/2004 7:10:12 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Not Fonda Kerry in '04 // Vets Against Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jim_trent
Too bad gun manufacturers don't do the same thing.

That was my first thought after reading the headline.

12 posted on 10/01/2004 7:11:10 PM PDT by gieriscm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

OTOH, maybe Ford SHOULD sell him the cars, then use the purchase as evidence in the civil suit that the Sheriff is being opportunistic, and doesn't actually believe the allegations in his own suit.


13 posted on 10/01/2004 7:11:29 PM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
Agreed. Plus it is good sense not to do business with someone who is suing you.

No need to give them more ammunition however inadvertently.

14 posted on 10/01/2004 7:11:44 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (There is no Chaos. Only very complicated Order. (Presenting Lady Snuggles of the Lethal Yew in PJ's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

I think it would be more likely to give Ford more ammunition for the civil suit, see my post 13.


15 posted on 10/01/2004 7:12:54 PM PDT by Still Thinking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Moleman
Politics aside, Ford is the worst OEM to work with from a suppliers perspective. They care only about cost not quality. Ford will unethically shop a suppliers proprietary technology around to the lowest bidder, typically a sell out to China.

I don't believe Ford only cares about cost and not quality. If that was the case they would not be in business very long. Let alone one of the top auto manufacturers in the world.

Otherwise, every business that wants to remain competetive in the world market shops around for the lowest bidders.

16 posted on 10/01/2004 7:15:00 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

One thing I don't understand about this is why can't the Sheriff find a dealer to buy from or does Ford have power over it's dealers to decide who they sell to?


17 posted on 10/01/2004 7:17:54 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory

The City that I work for took all the Ford Crown Vic PD cars in and they cut down a bolt in the rear of the vehicle near the frame. They told us the bolt was puncturing the fuel tanks during rear impact crashes, and as a result Officers were burning to death.

Many are probably correct by asserting that many of the crashes are unsurvivable, but many of the autopsies show the Officer died from burning to death instead of the impact of a collision.


18 posted on 10/01/2004 7:22:02 PM PDT by Dave278 ("Be polite, Be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
Their attempting to buy does give Ford ammo as apparently these are the exact same cars that were deemed so dangerous.
19 posted on 10/01/2004 7:22:13 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (There is no Chaos. Only very complicated Order. (Presenting Lady Snuggles of the Lethal Yew in PJ's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DeepInEnemyTerritory
"If the Crown Victoria has not been redesigned to correct this problem then I agree with Ford."

What problem? "14 accidents nationwide in which Ford interceptors caught fire after being rear-ended. Ford attorneys say that represents 0.01 percent of its interceptors on the road"

I think that Statistically it is almost perfect. Here is what I think happened. Good old sheriff Morris started the suit on Ford (even though "none of them Morris' cars.") hoping to get Ford to give him cars for free. In other words a negotiating tactic. Why else start a suit if none of your employees were injured by the product?

I hate Fords but the suit is another attempt by a government agency trying to cow private enterprise. Now he gets none. Good for Ford.
20 posted on 10/01/2004 7:22:21 PM PDT by JSteff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson