Skip to comments.
Crash victim gets $43 million award (Ford crash lawsuit)
GoEdwardsville.com ^
| April 20, 2005
| Steve Horrell
Posted on 04/20/2005 12:02:00 PM PDT by wmichgrad
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
1
posted on
04/20/2005 12:02:02 PM PDT
by
wmichgrad
To: wmichgrad
Why American business leaves America...
2
posted on
04/20/2005 12:05:12 PM PDT
by
2banana
(My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
To: wmichgrad
Why American business leaves America...
3
posted on
04/20/2005 12:05:19 PM PDT
by
2banana
(My common ground with terrorists - They want to die for Islam, and we want to kill them.)
To: wmichgrad
How soon until the usual suspects start blaming the lawyers, forgetting the responsibility of the idiot judge and moronic jury, and that there was a team of lawyers arguing against this absurd verdict?
4
posted on
04/20/2005 12:05:38 PM PDT
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
To: wmichgrad
Maybe Ford needs to move the fuel tank under the seat.
5
posted on
04/20/2005 12:07:21 PM PDT
by
bmwcyle
(Washington DC RINO Hunting Guide)
To: wmichgrad
6
posted on
04/20/2005 12:07:55 PM PDT
by
b4its2late
(Being "over the hill" is much better than being under it!)
To: Beelzebubba
They are all to blame. We need tort reform today to stop this nonsense.
7
posted on
04/20/2005 12:08:26 PM PDT
by
Sthitch
To: wmichgrad
Atlas will soon shrug.
I wish someone would point me to the gulch.
8
posted on
04/20/2005 12:09:04 PM PDT
by
CSM
To: Beelzebubba
Be sure to check out
Overlawyered. They've got a lot of interesting tidbits about Madison County, it's apparently a real friendly place to bring a lawsuit. This is likely something that'll get struck down, or at least reduced on appeal. And it's just kind of a cool site to read about current legal matters.
9
posted on
04/20/2005 12:10:18 PM PDT
by
faloi
To: 2banana
10
posted on
04/20/2005 12:10:26 PM PDT
by
stainlessbanner
(How can my net income support my gross habits?)
To: 2banana
11
posted on
04/20/2005 12:13:05 PM PDT
by
Rakkasan1
(The MRS wanted to go to an expensive place to eat so I took her to the gas station.)
To: CSM
"...point me to the gulch."
Let me know when you find it.
12
posted on
04/20/2005 12:15:15 PM PDT
by
Little Pig
(Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
To: Sthitch
We have appellate courts.
13
posted on
04/20/2005 12:15:27 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: wmichgrad
Are you hurt? Do you need money? I'll take the case. Next?
14
posted on
04/20/2005 12:15:59 PM PDT
by
Crawdad
(The following statement is false. The preceding statement is true.)
To: faloi
This is likely something that'll get struck down, or at least reduced on appeal.True, but the problem is (1) the costs borne by the defence in bringing the case to an appeal and (2) the chill on other defendents who settle meritless claims because of the risks involved in taking a claim to a jury. What you really need is loser pay, something that's always been around in Canada and works reasonably well.
15
posted on
04/20/2005 12:17:52 PM PDT
by
Squawk 8888
(End dependence on foreign oil- put a Slowpoke in your basement)
To: wmichgrad
There are a lot of cars out there with this gas tank configuration. It's no more or less unsafe than other designs; my Z carries a 19 gallon tank aft of the rear IRS, but before the bumper, and it's not been considered unsafe. I've not seen any argument yet (that made sense) that explained why the Town Car/Crown Vic/Grand Marquis tank design is any less safe than, say, the Cadillac Fleetwood, Jaguar XJ8. or the BMW 7-series' is. Anyone seen one?
16
posted on
04/20/2005 12:22:36 PM PDT
by
Spktyr
(Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
To: wmichgrad
I have only one thing to say:
WAHOOOO!!!!!
Seriously, did everyone read right past the portion of the article that said Ford knew of the increased risk of explosion by placing the fuel tank behind the axle and chose not to spend $10 per car on a recall to move it? This is bean counting at its worst that placed unecessary risks to the consumer. The verdict is high, and will be reduced on appeal, but come on, this case was meritorious.
To: Beelzebubba
How soon until the usual suspects start blaming the lawyers, forgetting the responsibility of the idiot judge and moronic jury, and that there was a team of lawyers arguing against this absurd verdict? Why not blame the lawyers? The "idiot judge" who permitted this case to go before a "moronic jury" is most likely a lawyer himself.
To: LA-Lawyer
I do know one thing, getting ANYTHING done to your car for under $10 is IMPOSSIBLE.
Seriously, think about it.
19
posted on
04/20/2005 12:33:14 PM PDT
by
ruiner
To: LA-Lawyer
Do you really think that it would only cost $10.00 to move the gas tank in a recall? Secondly, if they did recall the cars there would be an appropiate spot to move it. The car was engineered with the gas tank in a specific spot, no other spot would be as well protected.
20
posted on
04/20/2005 12:33:21 PM PDT
by
sharkhawk
(I really have to stop surfing at DU.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson