+- FocusCanada Forums (//www.focuscanada.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Canadian Focus Community (//www.focuscanada.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Off Topic (//www.focuscanada.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Thread: Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! (/showthread.php?tid=11160)
Pages:
1
2
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - Oscar The Grouch - 01-24-2006
CNN Coverage
...and Ford still denies its their fault. Guess in their eyes, safety is still a premium.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - meford4u - 01-24-2006
I can never understand the American philosophy of sue everyone. Drunk guy rams the rear end of the car your sitting in. Doesn't have much money. But Ford does.
BS
Hunting for money here.
Sorry but I feel sorry for those that lost their lives because of a drunk driver.
Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - Oscar The Grouch - 01-24-2006
meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:I can never understand the American philosophy of sue everyone. Drunk guy rams the rear end of the car your sitting in. Doesn't have much money. But Ford does.
BS
Hunting for money here.
Sorry but I feel sorry for those that lost their lives because of a drunk driver.
Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.
[right][snapback]166514[/snapback][/right]
Well, lets say it was someone who fell asleep at the wheel or had a sudden heart attack or someone who was on their cell phone and not paying attention to the road. Would having these plastic shields have prevented the flames and prevented certain death?
I love Ford's explanation why they're installed in cop cars, and I quote "civilian drivers do not need them because they do not use their cars like police officers, who often stop alongside high-speed expressways, exposed to onrushing traffic."
Guess stuff like stopping on highways is only limited to cops, emergency vehicles and scooba. :lol:
But seriously, don't you think that Ford could have prevented these deaths if they had implemented the same safety technology in their passenger cars and those in the cop cars?
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - meford4u - 01-24-2006
Oscar The Grouch,Jan 23 2006, 03:45 PM Wrote:meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:I can never understand the American philosophy of sue everyone. Drunk guy rams the rear end of the car your sitting in. Doesn't have much money. But Ford does.
BS
Hunting for money here.
Sorry but I feel sorry for those that lost their lives because of a drunk driver.Â
Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.
[right][snapback]166514[/snapback][/right]
Well, lets say it was someone who fell asleep at the wheel or had a sudden heart attack or someone who was on their cell phone and not paying attention to the road. Would having these plastic shields have prevented the flames and prevented certain death?
I love Ford's explanation why they're installed in cop cars, and I quote "civilian drivers do not need them because they do not use their cars like police officers, who often stop alongside high-speed expressways, exposed to onrushing traffic."
Guess stuff like stopping on highways is only limited to cops, emergency vehicles and scooba. :lol:
But seriously, don't you think that Ford could have prevented these deaths if they had implemented the same safety technology in their passenger cars and those in the cop cars?
[right][snapback]166517[/snapback][/right]
Let's stick to the facts of this case. The case you posted about. Let's not try to predict what might of happened but what did happen.
A drunk driver killed these women
Not ford
Sue the drunk driver and his family.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - Frost__2001 - 01-24-2006
meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:50 PM Wrote:Oscar The Grouch,Jan 23 2006, 03:45 PM Wrote:meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:I can never understand the American philosophy of sue everyone. Drunk guy rams the rear end of the car your sitting in. Doesn't have much money. But Ford does.
BS
Hunting for money here.
Sorry but I feel sorry for those that lost their lives because of a drunk driver.Â
Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.
[right][snapback]166514[/snapback][/right]
Well, lets say it was someone who fell asleep at the wheel or had a sudden heart attack or someone who was on their cell phone and not paying attention to the road. Would having these plastic shields have prevented the flames and prevented certain death?
I love Ford's explanation why they're installed in cop cars, and I quote "civilian drivers do not need them because they do not use their cars like police officers, who often stop alongside high-speed expressways, exposed to onrushing traffic."
Guess stuff like stopping on highways is only limited to cops, emergency vehicles and scooba. :lol:
But seriously, don't you think that Ford could have prevented these deaths if they had implemented the same safety technology in their passenger cars and those in the cop cars?
[right][snapback]166517[/snapback][/right]
Let's stick to the facts of this case. The case you posted about. Let's not try to predict what might of happened but what did happen.
A drunk driver killed these women
Not ford
Sue the drunk driver and his family.
[right][snapback]166518[/snapback][/right]
Good Point Meford, Honestly I think americans should really start to enforce their caps on law suits, and on how many times people can sue on another.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - crazikev - 01-24-2006
im gonna sue that drunk driver for wasting my time reading this thread about him
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - meford4u - 01-24-2006
crazikev,Jan 23 2006, 04:25 PM Wrote:im gonna sue that drunk driver for wasting my time reading this thread about him
[right][snapback]166539[/snapback][/right]
no no no...........sue ford
it's our fault for everything
we are god you know
and that makes me 1 of the 3 wise men :lol:
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - meford4u - 01-24-2006
damb, why can't I say fawk anymore.
I really have to mispell fauk to get my point across.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - crazikev - 01-24-2006
meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 05:43 PM Wrote:ok thencrazikev,Jan 23 2006, 04:25 PM Wrote:im gonna sue that drunk driver for wasting my time reading this thread about him
[right][snapback]166539[/snapback][/right]
no no no...........sue ford
it's our fault for everything
we are god you know
and that makes me 1 of the 3 wise men :lol:
[right][snapback]166562[/snapback][/right]
im gonna sue ford cause i want money
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - FocusGuy7476 - 01-24-2006
America is a Sue soceity plain and simple. look at some of the commericals that we get up here from the states, injury lawyers have enough money to make TV commericals how much does one of those cost. the only ones getting rich there are the lawyers.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - ZX5focused - 01-24-2006
limos are modified vehicles, i wouldnt be suing ford, i be sueing the company that built the limo!!!
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - ZTWsquared - 01-24-2006
meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.You may or may not be right about American's suing too much ... but you otherwise missed the point entirely.
[right][snapback]166514[/snapback][/right]
Whether or not the other driver was drunk has nothing to do with why they won an award because the cause of the accident is irrelevant to why Ford lost.
The point is that a design characteristic turned an otherwise survivable accident into a deadly one - smoke and fire killed those women not physical injuries.
The court determined that Ford knew about this design characteristic, had a fix for it and chose not to make the problem and the fix public knowledge ... and that if they had, and if that plastic shield had of been installed, the women would have survived.
In the court's eyes that made Ford culpable in their death. Is that worth money to the family for their loss? I'd say so.
If that had of been my wife or my mother ... better believe I'd sue.
And in the larger context ... the automotive industry and Ford in particular have proven that when it comes to doing the right thing, the only pressure they'll bend to is the massive negative publicity and the enormous financial losses associated with losing cases like this one.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - Oscar The Grouch - 01-24-2006
ZTWsquared,Jan 24 2006, 04:04 AM Wrote:meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.You may or may not be right about American's suing too much ... but you otherwise missed the point entirely.
[right][snapback]166514[/snapback][/right]
Whether or not the other driver was drunk has nothing to do with why they won an award because the cause of the accident is irrelevant to why Ford lost.
The point is that a design characteristic turned an otherwise survivable accident into a deadly one - smoke and fire killed those women not physical injuries.
The court determined that Ford knew about this design characteristic, had a fix for it and chose not to make the problem and the fix public knowledge ... and that if they had, and if that plastic shield had of been installed, the women would have survived.
In the court's eyes that made Ford culpable in their death. Is that worth money to the family for their loss? I'd say so.
If that had of been my wife or my mother ... better believe I'd sue.
And in the larger context ... the automotive industry and Ford in particular have proven that when it comes to doing the right thing, the only pressure they'll bend to is the massive negative publicity and the enormous financial losses associated with losing cases like this one.
[right][snapback]166660[/snapback][/right]
Well said. :D
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - meford4u - 01-25-2006
ZTWsquared,Jan 24 2006, 03:04 AM Wrote:meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.You may or may not be right about American's suing too much ... but you otherwise missed the point entirely.
[right][snapback]166514[/snapback][/right]
Whether or not the other driver was drunk has nothing to do with why they won an award because the cause of the accident is irrelevant to why Ford lost.
The point is that a design characteristic turned an otherwise survivable accident into a deadly one - smoke and fire killed those women not physical injuries.
The court determined that Ford knew about this design characteristic, had a fix for it and chose not to make the problem and the fix public knowledge ... and that if they had, and if that plastic shield had of been installed, the women would have survived.
In the court's eyes that made Ford culpable in their death. Is that worth money to the family for their loss? I'd say so.
If that had of been my wife or my mother ... better believe I'd sue.
And in the larger context ... the automotive industry and Ford in particular have proven that when it comes to doing the right thing, the only pressure they'll bend to is the massive negative publicity and the enormous financial losses associated with losing cases like this one.
[right][snapback]166660[/snapback][/right]
I got the point. Your missing the fact this accident would have never occurred if a drunk hadn't gotten behind the wheel and rammed the rear end of their car. That's the preventable side of this accident. Not Ford.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - ZTWsquared - 01-25-2006
meford4u,Jan 24 2006, 06:23 PM Wrote:I got the point. Your missing the fact this accident would have never occurred if a drunk hadn't gotten behind the wheel and rammed the rear end of their car. That's the preventable side of this accident. Not Ford.I didn't miss that fact - the point that I am making assumes that we are all in agreement that the drunk caused the collision - so let's move on.
[right][snapback]166830[/snapback][/right]
The cause of the collision was found to be irrelevant however, because the women apparently survived the collision. I wasn't in the courtroom, but reading the story leads me to believe that without the fire and smoke, the women would have sustained non life threatening injuries. They were apparently conscious as the vehicle burned.
The court determined that this collision (regardless of how it was caused and by whom) was survivable except for the fact that Ford's design of the fuel tank included a known fault ... a fault that had a known fix ... a fix that was already designed and implemented in other similar vehicles (cop cars) ... and a fix that Ford could have chosen to publicize and otherwise make available.
Ford is being told to bear the responsibilty for the business decisions they made that resulted in two women who survived a collision, subsequently dieing from smoke inhalation and fire.
We hear a lot of wild stories coming from the U.S. about their litigous society and some of the whacko lawsuits before the courts there and some of the even crazier decisions ... IMO this isn't one of them.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - meford4u - 01-25-2006
ZTWsquared,Jan 24 2006, 06:01 PM Wrote:meford4u,Jan 24 2006, 06:23 PM Wrote:I got the point. Your missing the fact this accident would have never occurred if a drunk hadn't gotten behind the wheel and rammed the rear end of their car. That's the preventable side of this accident. Not Ford.I didn't miss that fact - the point that I am making assumes that we are all in agreement that the drunk caused the collision - so let's move on.
[right][snapback]166830[/snapback][/right]
The cause of the collision was found to be irrelevant however, because the women apparently survived the collision. I wasn't in the courtroom, but reading the story leads me to believe that without the fire and smoke, the women would have sustained non life threatening injuries. They were apparently conscious as the vehicle burned.
The court determined that this collision (regardless of how it was caused and by whom) was survivable except for the fact that Ford's design of the fuel tank included a known fault ... a fault that had a known fix ... a fix that was already designed and implemented in other similar vehicles (cop cars) ... and a fix that Ford could have chosen to publicize and otherwise make available.
Ford is being told to bear the responsibilty for the business decisions they made that resulted in two women who survived a collision, subsequently dieing from smoke inhalation and fire.
We hear a lot of wild stories coming from the U.S. about their litigous society and some of the whacko lawsuits before the courts there and some of the even crazier decisions ... IMO this isn't one of them.
[right][snapback]166837[/snapback][/right]
Am I missing something here or are you. Ford settled out of court. The court determined nothing. Nor were they told to bear the responsibility.
Read the whole article. It would make it easier to argue with you.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - ZTWsquared - 01-25-2006
meford4u,Jan 23 2006, 04:31 PM Wrote:Like a plastic shield would have prevented him from not driving drunk and not ramming the rear end of their limo and they wouldn't of sustanined any injuries. i don't buy it.[right][snapback]166514[/snapback][/right]Ford obviously did buy it otherwise they wouldn't have settled out of court. All that money means they get to hire the best lawyers too.
You're right my post was written as if it had been a court decision, but Ford settling out of court has the same effect as Ford accepting liability for the deaths. Their high-paid lawyers undoubtedly saw the writing on the wall and pointed to the least expensive way out.
Ford settled = Ford lost.
Ford settled = drunk driver irrelevant because the women survived the initial impact.
Ford settled = Meford's argument without merit.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - meford4u - 01-25-2006
would your answer change if the settlement was say.......$1?
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - ZTWsquared - 01-25-2006
meford4u,Jan 24 2006, 10:51 PM Wrote:would your answer change if the settlement was say.......$1?Interesting question ... according to all three of the lawyers in my family the fact that the settlement details were undisclosed means both parties agreed to keep them secret, and that invariably means that the settlement was for a very large sum.
[right][snapback]166889[/snapback][/right]
If the settlement had been for just a token amount (ie: $1) undoubtedly Ford would have made sure we all knew about it.
The sad thing about all of this is that Ford could have easily predicted this lawsuit (and its outcome) when they decided to engineer the fix for the cops.
I was part of Ford of Canada's communication team that handled the Firestone crises and the estimate of financial damage from just the negative publicity spillover from the states was huge; even though it wasn't Ford's fault and even though there weren't any "proven" injuries in this country. Consumers just had this feeling that Ford was hiding something.
When it comes to potential product liability issues the automotive industry for the most part is still caught up in the tired 20th century m.o. of deny, delay, obsfucate, deny some more, delay some more and then settle out of court at the last minute when it appears a loss is imminent.
One day in our lifetime automotive companies will figure out that it is actuallly good business to make decisions based on what is morally and ethically the right thing to do, and not based solely on share value. The irony is that this approach would probably also be good for share value in the long run.
I appreciate your support of the company you work for because I suspect it also means you work hard to do a good job, and that's important to me because my brother and his family drive around in a Freestar.
I just hope for your sake and for the other good Ford employees like you, that the people running your company learn a more enlightened way to win consumers' hearts and loyalty ... and sooner than later. IMO it starts by paying more than lip service to the safety of their customers.
Cheers.
Curse Of The Ford Pinto Strikes Again! - PerfectSaiyan - 01-27-2006
I wouldnt sue Ford.
that is a dumb lawsuit and they SHOULD be appealing it.