At least in the USA....

[Ext User(OzOne)]

........you can get decent compensation when your Ford POS exhibits its
failings.


Paralysed woman awarded $89 million
Wednesday Mar 12 10:00 AEDT
AP - A California appeals court says a woman who was paralysed after
her Ford Explorer rolled over is entitled to $US82.6 million ($A89.2
million) in damages from the automaker.

The 4th District Court of Appeal was asked by the US Supreme Court to
review the case after Ford Motor Co appealed the award, arguing that
it was being punished even though the design of the vehicle met
federal safety standards.

Benetta Buell-Wilson was driving on an interstate east of San Diego in
January 2002 when she swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control
of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled four times. The mother of two was
paralysed from the waist down when the roof collapsed on her neck,
severing her spine.

A jury initially awarded Buell-Wilson $US369 million ($A400 million),
including $US246 million ($A266 million) in punitive damages but
courts twice cut the size of the award.




The $US82.6 million ($A89 million) approved by the appeals court on
Monday includes punitive damages of $US55 million ($A59 million).

The Supreme Court wanted the appeals court to determine if its ruling
was in line with an earlier Supreme Court decision overturning a
$US79.5 million ($A86 million) punitive damages award in a tobacco
case.


©AAP 2008




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(Feral Al)]

OzOne wrote:
> .......you can get decent compensation when your Ford POS exhibits its
> failings.
>
>
> Paralysed woman awarded $89 million
> Wednesday Mar 12 10:00 AEDT
> AP - A California appeals court says a woman who was paralysed after
> her Ford Explorer rolled over is entitled to $US82.6 million ($A89.2
> million) in damages from the automaker.
>
> The 4th District Court of Appeal was asked by the US Supreme Court to
> review the case after Ford Motor Co appealed the award, arguing that
> it was being punished even though the design of the vehicle met
> federal safety standards.
>
> Benetta Buell-Wilson was driving on an interstate east of San Diego in
> January 2002 when she swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control
> of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled four times. The mother of two was
> paralysed from the waist down when the roof collapsed on her neck,
> severing her spine.
>
> A jury initially awarded Buell-Wilson $US369 million ($A400 million),
> including $US246 million ($A266 million) in punitive damages but
> courts twice cut the size of the award.
>
>
>
>
> The $US82.6 million ($A89 million) approved by the appeals court on
> Monday includes punitive damages of $US55 million ($A59 million).
>
> The Supreme Court wanted the appeals court to determine if its ruling
> was in line with an earlier Supreme Court decision overturning a
> $US79.5 million ($A86 million) punitive damages award in a tobacco
> case.
>
>
> ©AAP 2008

That's apauling.

--
Take Care. ~~
Feral Al ( @..@)
(\- :-P -/)
((.>__oo__<.))
^^^ % ^^^

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:rcbet3tt1bfhm50sp2l4h8glk40119pcjl@4ax.com...
>
> .......you can get decent compensation when your Ford POS exhibits its
> failings.
>
>
> Paralysed woman awarded $89 million
> Wednesday Mar 12 10:00 AEDT
> AP - A California appeals court says a woman who was paralysed after
> her Ford Explorer rolled over is entitled to $US82.6 million ($A89.2
> million) in damages from the automaker.
>
> The 4th District Court of Appeal was asked by the US Supreme Court to
> review the case after Ford Motor Co appealed the award, arguing that
> it was being punished even though the design of the vehicle met
> federal safety standards.
>
> Benetta Buell-Wilson was driving on an interstate east of San Diego in
> January 2002 when she swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control
> of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled four times. The mother of two was
> paralysed from the waist down when the roof collapsed on her neck,
> severing her spine.
>
> A jury initially awarded Buell-Wilson $US369 million ($A400 million),
> including $US246 million ($A266 million) in punitive damages but
> courts twice cut the size of the award.
>
>
>
>
> The $US82.6 million ($A89 million) approved by the appeals court on
> Monday includes punitive damages of $US55 million ($A59 million).
>
> The Supreme Court wanted the appeals court to determine if its ruling
> was in line with an earlier Supreme Court decision overturning a
> $US79.5 million ($A86 million) punitive damages award in a tobacco
> case.

**Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a little
more for each car they buy real soon now.

The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of business.
Such things may put other companies out of business, even though they are
not at fault.

Trevor Wilson

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:46:14 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:


>
>**Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
>court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a little
>more for each car they buy real soon now.

Mistake was to buy a Ford with dreadful dynamics and a roof that
collapsed.
>
>The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of business.

Dow Corning is still doing quite well after they settled the case
The decision to continue production of implants despite the evidence
and successfull million dollar award against them in the early 80's
which then led to many more womeen's lives being destroyed has been
put behind them.....well almost, they have a multi billion dollar fund
set aside to pay future claims.

>Such things may put other companies out of business, even though they are
>not at fault.

If they are not at fault...they don't lose the cases!
>
>Trevor Wilson
>




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:83fet3dera81ull40v2bbb0id3lbfuk34t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:46:14 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>**Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
>>court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a
>>little
>>more for each car they buy real soon now.
>
> Mistake was to buy a Ford with dreadful dynamics and a roof that
> collapsed.

**No. The silly bitch did something REALLY dumb to roll her car. Cars don't
rollover, unless they hit something like a gutter, or a pothole, or go off
the road.

>>
>>The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of
>>business.
>
> Dow Corning is still doing quite well after they settled the case
> The decision to continue production of implants despite the evidence
> and successfull million dollar award against them in the early 80's
> which then led to many more womeen's lives being destroyed has been
> put behind them.....well almost, they have a multi billion dollar fund
> set aside to pay future claims.
>
>>Such things may put other companies out of business, even though they are
>>not at fault.
>
> If they are not at fault...they don't lose the cases!

**Dow got sued for millions of Dollars, even though it was proven their
implants were not at fault. The stupid jury felt sorry for the woman and
awarded her a heap of dough. The US system is seriously flawed. As is ours.
Unqualified juries have no place in such trials.

Trevor Wilson

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:63oqvqF28fmhuU1@mid.individual.net...

> **Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
> court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a
> little more for each car they buy real soon now.
>
> The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of
> business. Such things may put other companies out of business, even though
> they are not at fault.

Only in America.

Ford has lost a number of ridiculous cases in the courts, including one in
the 1970's where a class action was taken against them by owners who claimed
that their column auto cars "automatically" shifted from park to reverse,
and usually when the driver got out and slammed the door closed. In a few of
the cases the cars were running on auto choke at the time and took off in
reverse causing damage, and one particular case if I remember correctly
concerned someone either being killed or severely injured when an "affected"
car was parked at the top of a steep driveway and rolled back crashing
through the house down below.

At the trial, Ford was clearly able to demonstrate that there was nothing
wrong with their gear lever system and the only way it could "pop" out of
park against the detent was if it wasn't fully placed into park in the first
place. The prosecution admitted that not *one* of the claimants had applied
the parking brake in conjunction with placing the transmission in park prior
to exiting the vehicle as they were *supposed* to (and as the owner's manual
supplied with every car stated they should), and while a bunch of practical
tests were done to try to make one of Ford's cars fall out of park the
phenomena could never be repeated for the jury.

Still, Ford lost the case, as the argument hinged on the term "park", and
the idea that placing the transmission in "park" meant the vehicle was
secure was a reasonable assumption for anyone to make. Nice to know that
Ford (and others) wasted millions of trees in printing operator's manuals
that no one takes any notice of.

Still, what goes around comes around.

When Ford released the Pinto in the early '70's the car quickly gained a
reputation as a killer, as it had a nasty habit of bursting into flames if
it was hit from behind. The problem stemmed from the fact that the fuel tank
was positioned in such a way that when the car was hit it from behind the
tank was punctured by some suspension bolts that were in less than ideal
positions, and it didn't take much of a hit for that to happen.

A number of people were killed, while many more were horrendously burned.

Still, that wasn't the worst of it. The *worst* of it was that Ford *knew*
about the problem before the car ever went on sale.

Almost unbelievably, Ford never crash tested one single Pinto before
releasing the thing for sale on the market. They were struggling to meet
their target release date and had advance orders and couldn't spare the cars
so they *simulated* it by using a few English Capri's modified in a way to
replicate the Pinto's fuel tank & suspension arrangement. Still, even in
those tests many of the car's split their tanks and burst into flames, and
they knew they had a potential problem on their hands.

Rather than address the issue and make the cars safe, Ford asked the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to put a "dollar value" on a
human fatality so they could conduct a cost/benefit study. The NTHSA arrived
at a figure of $200,725 and Ford used this as their basis in their own
study, the report of which was entitled "Fatalities associated with crash
induced fuel leakage and fires".

Basically, they concluded that the cost of modifying each vehicle in the
Ford range to prevent fires would be $11 per vehicle, which would amount to
137 million dollars over the forecasted total year sales, compared to the
$200,725 they were likely to face each time someone was burnt to death in
one of their cars, it was unquestionably cheaper to sell the cars in a
dangerous state and let people be killed.

And that's exactly what they did.

Still, American laws are pretty fucking dumb. There's a company in the US
called Simpson who manufactures motorsports safety equipment (things like
Helmets, driving suits, gloves, boots and the like). Their stuff is
enormously popular and they make pretty good gear, but they have to allocate
10% of their turnover to defending lawsuits that result from people suing
them when they're injured in motorsports accidents.

Even though you'd have to be dumber than dogshit to not know that such
activity is dangerous, and every piece of Simpson gear comes with a label
advising such.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:05:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
><OzOne> wrote in message news:83fet3dera81ull40v2bbb0id3lbfuk34t@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:46:14 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>**Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
>>>court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a
>>>little
>>>more for each car they buy real soon now.
>>
>> Mistake was to buy a Ford with dreadful dynamics and a roof that
>> collapsed.
>
>**No. The silly bitch did something REALLY dumb to roll her car. Cars don't
>rollover, unless they hit something like a gutter, or a pothole, or go off
>the road.

Rubbish!
>
>>>
>>>The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of
>>>business.
>>
>> Dow Corning is still doing quite well after they settled the case
>> The decision to continue production of implants despite the evidence
>> and successfull million dollar award against them in the early 80's
>> which then led to many more womeen's lives being destroyed has been
>> put behind them.....well almost, they have a multi billion dollar fund
>> set aside to pay future claims.
>>
>>>Such things may put other companies out of business, even though they are
>>>not at fault.
>>
>> If they are not at fault...they don't lose the cases!
>
>**Dow got sued for millions of Dollars, even though it was proven their
>implants were not at fault. The stupid jury felt sorry for the woman and
>awarded her a heap of dough. The US system is seriously flawed. As is ours.
>Unqualified juries have no place in such trials.

Nope...You have it all wrong It was never proven taht their implants
were not at fault.
The second case was a class action.
>
>Trevor Wilson
>




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:7siet35198hossuq2mqupn5bomfm7fmcb0@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:05:01 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>><OzOne> wrote in message
>>news:83fet3dera81ull40v2bbb0id3lbfuk34t@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:46:14 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>>> <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>**Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
>>>>court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a
>>>>little
>>>>more for each car they buy real soon now.
>>>
>>> Mistake was to buy a Ford with dreadful dynamics and a roof that
>>> collapsed.
>>
>>**No. The silly bitch did something REALLY dumb to roll her car. Cars
>>don't
>>rollover, unless they hit something like a gutter, or a pothole, or go off
>>the road.
>
> Rubbish!
>>
>>>>
>>>>The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of
>>>>business.
>>>
>>> Dow Corning is still doing quite well after they settled the case
>>> The decision to continue production of implants despite the evidence
>>> and successfull million dollar award against them in the early 80's
>>> which then led to many more womeen's lives being destroyed has been
>>> put behind them.....well almost, they have a multi billion dollar fund
>>> set aside to pay future claims.
>>>
>>>>Such things may put other companies out of business, even though they
>>>>are
>>>>not at fault.
>>>
>>> If they are not at fault...they don't lose the cases!
>>
>>**Dow got sued for millions of Dollars, even though it was proven their
>>implants were not at fault. The stupid jury felt sorry for the woman and
>>awarded her a heap of dough. The US system is seriously flawed. As is
>>ours.
>>Unqualified juries have no place in such trials.
>
> Nope...You have it all wrong It was never proven taht their implants
> were not at fault.

**Exactly!

> The second case was a class action.

**Based on the outcome of the first.

Trevor Wilson

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:47d74b8c$0$36007$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
> news:63oqvqF28fmhuU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>> **Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
>> court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a
>> little more for each car they buy real soon now.
>>
>> The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of
>> business. Such things may put other companies out of business, even
>> though they are not at fault.
>
> Only in America.
>
> Ford has lost a number of ridiculous cases in the courts, including one in
> the 1970's where a class action was taken against them by owners who
> claimed that their column auto cars "automatically" shifted from park to
> reverse, and usually when the driver got out and slammed the door closed.
> In a few of the cases the cars were running on auto choke at the time and
> took off in reverse causing damage, and one particular case if I remember
> correctly concerned someone either being killed or severely injured when
> an "affected" car was parked at the top of a steep driveway and rolled
> back crashing through the house down below.
>
> At the trial, Ford was clearly able to demonstrate that there was nothing
> wrong with their gear lever system and the only way it could "pop" out of
> park against the detent was if it wasn't fully placed into park in the
> first place. The prosecution admitted that not *one* of the claimants had
> applied the parking brake in conjunction with placing the transmission in
> park prior to exiting the vehicle as they were *supposed* to (and as the
> owner's manual supplied with every car stated they should), and while a
> bunch of practical tests were done to try to make one of Ford's cars fall
> out of park the phenomena could never be repeated for the jury.
>
> Still, Ford lost the case, as the argument hinged on the term "park", and
> the idea that placing the transmission in "park" meant the vehicle was
> secure was a reasonable assumption for anyone to make. Nice to know that
> Ford (and others) wasted millions of trees in printing operator's manuals
> that no one takes any notice of.
>
> Still, what goes around comes around.
>
> When Ford released the Pinto in the early '70's the car quickly gained a
> reputation as a killer, as it had a nasty habit of bursting into flames if
> it was hit from behind. The problem stemmed from the fact that the fuel
> tank was positioned in such a way that when the car was hit it from behind
> the tank was punctured by some suspension bolts that were in less than
> ideal positions, and it didn't take much of a hit for that to happen.
>
> A number of people were killed, while many more were horrendously burned.
>
> Still, that wasn't the worst of it. The *worst* of it was that Ford *knew*
> about the problem before the car ever went on sale.
>
> Almost unbelievably, Ford never crash tested one single Pinto before
> releasing the thing for sale on the market. They were struggling to meet
> their target release date and had advance orders and couldn't spare the
> cars so they *simulated* it by using a few English Capri's modified in a
> way to replicate the Pinto's fuel tank & suspension arrangement. Still,
> even in those tests many of the car's split their tanks and burst into
> flames, and they knew they had a potential problem on their hands.
>
> Rather than address the issue and make the cars safe, Ford asked the
> National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to put a "dollar value" on
> a human fatality so they could conduct a cost/benefit study. The NTHSA
> arrived at a figure of $200,725 and Ford used this as their basis in their
> own study, the report of which was entitled "Fatalities associated with
> crash induced fuel leakage and fires".
>
> Basically, they concluded that the cost of modifying each vehicle in the
> Ford range to prevent fires would be $11 per vehicle, which would amount
> to 137 million dollars over the forecasted total year sales, compared to
> the $200,725 they were likely to face each time someone was burnt to death
> in one of their cars, it was unquestionably cheaper to sell the cars in a
> dangerous state and let people be killed.
>
> And that's exactly what they did.
>
> Still, American laws are pretty fucking dumb. There's a company in the US
> called Simpson who manufactures motorsports safety equipment (things like
> Helmets, driving suits, gloves, boots and the like). Their stuff is
> enormously popular and they make pretty good gear, but they have to
> allocate 10% of their turnover to defending lawsuits that result from
> people suing them when they're injured in motorsports accidents.
>
> Even though you'd have to be dumber than dogshit to not know that such
> activity is dangerous, and every piece of Simpson gear comes with a label
> advising such.

[Shakes head]

Trevor Wilson

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:32:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:


>>
>> Nope...You have it all wrong It was never proven taht their implants
>> were not at fault.
>
>**Exactly!

Yes, exactly...Dow were happy to settle rather than have their
negligence proven.
>
>> The second case was a class action.
>
>**Based on the outcome of the first.

Nope again,
based upon the evidence presented, including the fact that Dow execs
recognised that their implants were a problem yet made the decision to
continue producing them.
>
>Trevor Wilson
>




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:34:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
>"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
>news:47d74b8c$0$36007$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>>
>> "Trevor Wilson" <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:63oqvqF28fmhuU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> **Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
>>> court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a
>>> little more for each car they buy real soon now.
>>>
>>> The ridiculous damages awards against Dow Corning put them out of
>>> business. Such things may put other companies out of business, even
>>> though they are not at fault.
>>
>> Only in America.
>>
>> Ford has lost a number of ridiculous cases in the courts, including one in
>> the 1970's where a class action was taken against them by owners who
>> claimed that their column auto cars "automatically" shifted from park to
>> reverse, and usually when the driver got out and slammed the door closed.
>> In a few of the cases the cars were running on auto choke at the time and
>> took off in reverse causing damage, and one particular case if I remember
>> correctly concerned someone either being killed or severely injured when
>> an "affected" car was parked at the top of a steep driveway and rolled
>> back crashing through the house down below.
>>
>> At the trial, Ford was clearly able to demonstrate that there was nothing
>> wrong with their gear lever system and the only way it could "pop" out of
>> park against the detent was if it wasn't fully placed into park in the
>> first place. The prosecution admitted that not *one* of the claimants had
>> applied the parking brake in conjunction with placing the transmission in
>> park prior to exiting the vehicle as they were *supposed* to (and as the
>> owner's manual supplied with every car stated they should), and while a
>> bunch of practical tests were done to try to make one of Ford's cars fall
>> out of park the phenomena could never be repeated for the jury.
>>
>> Still, Ford lost the case, as the argument hinged on the term "park", and
>> the idea that placing the transmission in "park" meant the vehicle was
>> secure was a reasonable assumption for anyone to make. Nice to know that
>> Ford (and others) wasted millions of trees in printing operator's manuals
>> that no one takes any notice of.
>>
>> Still, what goes around comes around.
>>
>> When Ford released the Pinto in the early '70's the car quickly gained a
>> reputation as a killer, as it had a nasty habit of bursting into flames if
>> it was hit from behind. The problem stemmed from the fact that the fuel
>> tank was positioned in such a way that when the car was hit it from behind
>> the tank was punctured by some suspension bolts that were in less than
>> ideal positions, and it didn't take much of a hit for that to happen.
>>
>> A number of people were killed, while many more were horrendously burned.
>>
>> Still, that wasn't the worst of it. The *worst* of it was that Ford *knew*
>> about the problem before the car ever went on sale.
>>
>> Almost unbelievably, Ford never crash tested one single Pinto before
>> releasing the thing for sale on the market. They were struggling to meet
>> their target release date and had advance orders and couldn't spare the
>> cars so they *simulated* it by using a few English Capri's modified in a
>> way to replicate the Pinto's fuel tank & suspension arrangement. Still,
>> even in those tests many of the car's split their tanks and burst into
>> flames, and they knew they had a potential problem on their hands.
>>
>> Rather than address the issue and make the cars safe, Ford asked the
>> National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to put a "dollar value" on
>> a human fatality so they could conduct a cost/benefit study. The NTHSA
>> arrived at a figure of $200,725 and Ford used this as their basis in their
>> own study, the report of which was entitled "Fatalities associated with
>> crash induced fuel leakage and fires".
>>
>> Basically, they concluded that the cost of modifying each vehicle in the
>> Ford range to prevent fires would be $11 per vehicle, which would amount
>> to 137 million dollars over the forecasted total year sales, compared to
>> the $200,725 they were likely to face each time someone was burnt to death
>> in one of their cars, it was unquestionably cheaper to sell the cars in a
>> dangerous state and let people be killed.
>>
>> And that's exactly what they did.
>>
>> Still, American laws are pretty fucking dumb. There's a company in the US
>> called Simpson who manufactures motorsports safety equipment (things like
>> Helmets, driving suits, gloves, boots and the like). Their stuff is
>> enormously popular and they make pretty good gear, but they have to
>> allocate 10% of their turnover to defending lawsuits that result from
>> people suing them when they're injured in motorsports accidents.
>>
>> Even though you'd have to be dumber than dogshit to not know that such
>> activity is dangerous, and every piece of Simpson gear comes with a label
>> advising such.
>
>[Shakes head]
>
>Trevor Wilson
>

Yep, Noodelle often adjusts the facts to suit his argument.




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

[Ext User(Trevor Wilson)]

<OzOne> wrote in message news:35met39qp9f9906isuadufavtlqeb3tp07@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:32:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Nope...You have it all wrong It was never proven taht their implants
>>> were not at fault.
>>
>>**Exactly!
>
> Yes, exactly...Dow were happy to settle rather than have their
> negligence proven.

**Nope. Dow were found by the court to have manufactured implants which
injured women. The implants never did, actually, injure women, however. The
fault lay with the stupid jurors.

>>
>>> The second case was a class action.
>>
>>**Based on the outcome of the first.
>
> Nope again,
> based upon the evidence presented, including the fact that Dow execs
> recognised that their implants were a problem yet made the decision to
> continue producing them.

**Wrong. The implants were never proven to cause problems. The stupid jury
thought otherwise.

Trevor Wilson

[Ext User(Just JT)]

"OzOne" wrote:
>
> .......you can get decent compensation when your Ford POS exhibits its
> failings.
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....Or let society pay for ur own failings....

--
Glad.we're.not.in.'Merikuh.

[Ext User(Athol)]

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

> At the trial, Ford was clearly able to demonstrate that there was nothing
> wrong with their gear lever system and the only way it could "pop" out of
> park against the detent was if it wasn't fully placed into park in the first
> place. The prosecution admitted that not *one* of the claimants had applied
> the parking brake in conjunction with placing the transmission in park prior
> to exiting the vehicle as they were *supposed* to (and as the owner's manual
> supplied with every car stated they should), and while a bunch of practical
> tests were done to try to make one of Ford's cars fall out of park the
> phenomena could never be repeated for the jury.

> Still, Ford lost the case, as the argument hinged on the term "park", and
> the idea that placing the transmission in "park" meant the vehicle was
> secure was a reasonable assumption for anyone to make. Nice to know that
> Ford (and others) wasted millions of trees in printing operator's manuals
> that no one takes any notice of.

If you've ever wondered why Allison autos don't have a park position...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Albm&ctd)]

In article <rcbet3tt1bfhm50sp2l4h8glk40119pcjl@4ax.com>, OzOne says...
>
> .......you can get decent compensation when your Ford POS exhibits its
> failings.
>
Some people shouldn't get keys... to any vehicle.

Al
--
I don't take sides.
It's more fun to insult everyone.
http://kwakakid.cjb.net/insult.html

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

OzOne wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:46:14 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
> <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>> **Bizarre. Silly bitch makes a mistake. The car is not at fault and the
>> court awards damages against Ford. I guess every American will pay a little
>> more for each car they buy real soon now.
>
> Mistake was to buy a Ford with dreadful dynamics and a roof that
> collapsed.

From all accounts the Explorer isn't a great handler but I'd bet that
very many other vehicles would also roll causing the roof to collapse
when driven the same way.
Anyone with half a brain knows that its very dangerous to swerve any
vehicle at highway speeds so IMO the driver should be held at least
partly responsible.



Daryl

[Ext User(Daryl Walford)]

Noddy wrote:

> Still, that wasn't the worst of it. The *worst* of it was that Ford *knew*
> about the problem before the car ever went on sale.

I suspect thats partly why Ford got punished in the Explorer case, they
gained a bad reputation so the jury assumed they were guilty.


Daryl

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13tfd3p1bcjhlcb@corp.supernews.com...

> From all accounts the Explorer isn't a great handler but I'd bet that very
> many other vehicles would also roll causing the roof to collapse when
> driven the same way.
> Anyone with half a brain knows that its very dangerous to swerve any
> vehicle at highway speeds so IMO the driver should be held at least partly
> responsible.

Yeah, like 99% :)

You're right, the Exploder ain't a good vehicle (in fact it's a fucking huge
heap of shit), but any other similar vehicle would most likely have done
exactly the same thing.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Daryl Walford" <dwalford@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13tfddgmcvqgv09@corp.supernews.com...

> I suspect thats partly why Ford got punished in the Explorer case, they
> gained a bad reputation so the jury assumed they were guilty.

The jumping out of park thing was a "payback" as well I think, as that came
not all that long after the Pinto fiasco and it was still fresh in
everyone's mind.

On the other hand, some manufacturers are presumed guilty no matter how
innocent they are.

About 10 years ago some "current affairs" type show in the US thought it
would be a good idea to "invent" a headline, and came up with the story that
Chevy Stepside utes had a nasty habit of catching fire in accidents due to
the unusual location of their fuel tanks (the tank on the vehicle in
question was located in the side of the vehicle cabin just behind the
driver). They purchased a few of the things and set about deliberately
crashing them, and in "unique" ways that would be most likely to rupture the
tanks but highly unlikely to ever happen in the real world.

However, try as they might they couldn't get one to split it's tank and
burst into flames.

So, not wanting to waste their time & money they set about making one ignite
on purpose. They deliberately modified the fuel tank by placing a "burst
patch" in the thing so it would be guaranteed to spew it's load all over the
place when it was hit, and lined the area surrounding the tank with electric
peizzo lighters triggered by remote control. Of course, on the very next
test the modified vehicle was crashed, it's over full tank dropped it's guts
and a few seconds later it went up in a huge fireball when the "technician"
off camera hit the remote control button.

And the story went to air.

GM naturally hit the roof and claimed it was all bullshit, but as is the
case in such incidences that was accepted with about as much faith as Adolph
Eichmann saying he really loved Jews and was actually "helping them". The TV
show kept on about it thinking they were making a big name for themselves
when suddenly GM issued a writ against them with a star witness: One of the
"crew" who fabricated the explosion :)

In court GM was vindicated with the TV show fined and told not to do it
again, but they were *not* ordered to make a public apology nor was GM given
any airtime in their own defence to state that it was indeed all bullshit
and there was never anything wrong with their trucks.

To this day the things carry a reputation as a "Zippo" (as in the cigarette
lighter). Their sales were affected by the bad publicity and never really
climbed back to the pre story levels.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(OzOne)]

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:39:55 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
<trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

>
><OzOne> wrote in message news:35met39qp9f9906isuadufavtlqeb3tp07@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:32:03 +1100, "Trevor Wilson"
>> <trevor@_SPAMBLOCK_rageaudio.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope...You have it all wrong It was never proven taht their implants
>>>> were not at fault.
>>>
>>>**Exactly!
>>
>> Yes, exactly...Dow were happy to settle rather than have their
>> negligence proven.
>
>**Nope. Dow were found by the court to have manufactured implants which
>injured women. The implants never did, actually, injure women, however. The
>fault lay with the stupid jurors.

So where exactly did the silicone that was migrating through their
bodies come from?
>
>>>
>>>> The second case was a class action.
>>>
>>>**Based on the outcome of the first.
>>
>> Nope again,
>> based upon the evidence presented, including the fact that Dow execs
>> recognised that their implants were a problem yet made the decision to
>> continue producing them.
>
>**Wrong. The implants were never proven to cause problems. The stupid jury
>thought otherwise.

The "stupid jury" saw women with a whole variety of problems mostly
caused by silicone in their bodies....some time before their problems,
their enhanced breasts had started to reduce.....
>
>Trevor Wilson
>




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.