Ford must pay $113 million for seatbelt rollover death
Discussion
Why ford and not the driver who ran him off the road i'm really not sure..
Four point harness to be mandated next? I'd have thought so long as car makers pass all the required safety standards they would be immune from this sort of suing culture.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/19/eveningn...
CBS said:
(CBS) Brian Cole was a minor league baseball player headed for the big leagues, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.
"Brian was actually on the 40-man roster for the New York Mets organization," said his brother Greg.
Greg says while Brian was driving home from spring training in Fla., a car forced his 2001 Ford Explorer off the road.
It flipped three times. Brian was thrown from it and killed. Everyone assumed he hadn't buckled up.
That surprised Greg, who thought Brian always wore his seat belt. Then, he made a startling discovery.
Brian Cole's Life and Accident Photos
"One thing we noticed when we opened the truck was that the seatbelt was still latched," said Greg. "That kind of raised suspicions in our mind."
Brian's family claims he was wearing his seat belt - but say it was defective and became so loose, it failed to hold him in.
That's because the belt was designed to lock into a firm grip when there's sudden movement, like during a collision.
But the same belt could fail and go slack during the unpredictable forces of a rollover.
Brian's family sued Ford. Engineers used illustrations to show that Brian's belt came loose on the first roll; he was thrown 78 feet, and never had a chance.
But the most damaging evidence was found in Ford's own internal documents.
Five years before the accident, Ford's own seat belt manufacturer TRW warned Ford that "conventional" seat belts can "release...during rollovers." TRW told Ford they already offered a better design: a belt that "remains locked with belt tension regardless of motion."
Yet it took Ford five years to begin using the improved belts in some SUVs. Brian was already dead.
"You think that you put the seat belt on, you think you've done every precaution you can to protect yourself and when you know there was another option that could've possibly prevented my brother from losing his life, that's very frustrating," said Greg.
The big question is: How many seat belts like Brian's are still out there? Experts estimate they're in 3 million older SUVs still on the road, and an unknown number of newer vehicles. But there's no easy way for consumers to tell. And federal officials don't require rollover-safe designs.
According to federal data, 22,000 people who were wearing their seat belts died in rollover crashes between 1992 and 2002. Joan Claybrook used to head the federal highway safety agency NHTSA. She says rollover-safe belts are inexpensive and that federal officials should have forced automakers to use them years ago. As it is, she says there are no federal rules mandating seat belts that hold in a rollover crash.
Ford officials wouldn't agree to an interview, but say it's unfair to blame Ford for Brian Cole's death. They still insist he simply wasn't wearing his safety belt.
The jurors decided otherwise after seeing a coroner's photo. It appeared to show the severe bruising where Brian's shoulder belt grabbed him -- before going slack and letting him go. In September, the jury returned an astonishing $131 million verdict against Ford.
"Once they heard the information, once they saw the evidence, no doubt in their minds that he had his seat belt on and he had done all he could do," said Greg.
Brian's family says his reputation was tarnished by the assumption he hadn't buckled up. They can't bring him back, but feel they did clear his name.
"Brian was actually on the 40-man roster for the New York Mets organization," said his brother Greg.
Greg says while Brian was driving home from spring training in Fla., a car forced his 2001 Ford Explorer off the road.
It flipped three times. Brian was thrown from it and killed. Everyone assumed he hadn't buckled up.
That surprised Greg, who thought Brian always wore his seat belt. Then, he made a startling discovery.
Brian Cole's Life and Accident Photos
"One thing we noticed when we opened the truck was that the seatbelt was still latched," said Greg. "That kind of raised suspicions in our mind."
Brian's family claims he was wearing his seat belt - but say it was defective and became so loose, it failed to hold him in.
That's because the belt was designed to lock into a firm grip when there's sudden movement, like during a collision.
But the same belt could fail and go slack during the unpredictable forces of a rollover.
Brian's family sued Ford. Engineers used illustrations to show that Brian's belt came loose on the first roll; he was thrown 78 feet, and never had a chance.
But the most damaging evidence was found in Ford's own internal documents.
Five years before the accident, Ford's own seat belt manufacturer TRW warned Ford that "conventional" seat belts can "release...during rollovers." TRW told Ford they already offered a better design: a belt that "remains locked with belt tension regardless of motion."
Yet it took Ford five years to begin using the improved belts in some SUVs. Brian was already dead.
"You think that you put the seat belt on, you think you've done every precaution you can to protect yourself and when you know there was another option that could've possibly prevented my brother from losing his life, that's very frustrating," said Greg.
The big question is: How many seat belts like Brian's are still out there? Experts estimate they're in 3 million older SUVs still on the road, and an unknown number of newer vehicles. But there's no easy way for consumers to tell. And federal officials don't require rollover-safe designs.
According to federal data, 22,000 people who were wearing their seat belts died in rollover crashes between 1992 and 2002. Joan Claybrook used to head the federal highway safety agency NHTSA. She says rollover-safe belts are inexpensive and that federal officials should have forced automakers to use them years ago. As it is, she says there are no federal rules mandating seat belts that hold in a rollover crash.
Ford officials wouldn't agree to an interview, but say it's unfair to blame Ford for Brian Cole's death. They still insist he simply wasn't wearing his safety belt.
The jurors decided otherwise after seeing a coroner's photo. It appeared to show the severe bruising where Brian's shoulder belt grabbed him -- before going slack and letting him go. In September, the jury returned an astonishing $131 million verdict against Ford.
"Once they heard the information, once they saw the evidence, no doubt in their minds that he had his seat belt on and he had done all he could do," said Greg.
Brian's family says his reputation was tarnished by the assumption he hadn't buckled up. They can't bring him back, but feel they did clear his name.
Four point harness to be mandated next? I'd have thought so long as car makers pass all the required safety standards they would be immune from this sort of suing culture.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/19/eveningn...
Edited by Bugeyeandy on Saturday 20th November 12:00
So if Ford were told five years before the accident that their seatbelts had a fault - and his car was made in 2001 - then that evidence can only be relevant if he crashed before 2006 surely? Even then it shouldn't really be considered relevant if the car has passed American safety standards tests. Oh well, blame someone else!
For the record I don't know when the accident was, does anyone else here?
For the record I don't know when the accident was, does anyone else here?
"On March 31, 2001, a 22-year-old outfielder named Brian Cole climbed into his 2001 Ford Explorer, a two-door SUV, and headed west from Port St. Lucie. His 17-year-old cousin, Ryan Cole, was along for the ride.
Spring training was over, and Cole - one of the brightest prospects in the Mets' farm system - was bound for a Double-A assignment in Binghamton, but not before he returned the Explorer to his parents' home in Mississippi.
Brian Cole never made it to his hometown of Meridian. In an accident whose cause remains a source of legal debate, Cole rolled the vehicle while traveling westbound on State Highway 8 near the Florida-Georgia border, was thrown from the vehicle, and died several hours later in a Florida hospital. His cousin, Ryan, was released from the hospital hours later."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/20...
Spring training was over, and Cole - one of the brightest prospects in the Mets' farm system - was bound for a Double-A assignment in Binghamton, but not before he returned the Explorer to his parents' home in Mississippi.
Brian Cole never made it to his hometown of Meridian. In an accident whose cause remains a source of legal debate, Cole rolled the vehicle while traveling westbound on State Highway 8 near the Florida-Georgia border, was thrown from the vehicle, and died several hours later in a Florida hospital. His cousin, Ryan, was released from the hospital hours later."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/20...
On the one hand a known failure like this being allowed to slide is unacceptable. On the other hand I would guess it is partially homoligation to blame. If something doesn't need to be done a manufacturer wont do it. If the tests to prove roadworthyness don't cover that failure mode then compliance is optional. If the fix costs more money to implement a volume shifter just wont put it in.
"he had done everything possible to prevent injury or death"........... well, except not buy a stupid lardy SUV that turn upside down at the drop of a hat !!!!
so:
how do the jury know that the "shoulder abrasions" were not caused by smacking into parts of the car as he left etc?
how do we know that he would have suvived if he had not been thrown from the vehicle?
personally can't see how a car manufacture can effectively guarentee that you won't be killed in one of there cars??
In fact a manufacturer could easily make a car that prevented you from dying in it, but it would be so massive, uneconomical, and expensive, that no one could afford to buy one. Effectively, with all safety issues, it becomes a balance of "probability of death or injurys" vs costs. And as such it can only be judged on average data, not individual cases. So, if the vehicle in question has several cases of the seatbelt failing and people being thrown out, then yes, probably should have been fixed, if in one case (where tbh, there doesn't seem to be any actual physical evidence that the driver had put the seat belt on) it happened then we don't know if that was just "unlucky" etc (it's perfectly possible for a occupant to come out from under a 3 point belt, in a multidirection loading scenario like a rollover, even with a perfectly fitted and operational belt, why do you think motorsport mandates at least 4 points and preferably 5 or 6 !!!!)
Sounds like a typical american "lets sue someone with loads of money because someone died" case to me. Lets hope they are happy with the money, cause he's still very dead............
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th November 12:46
As I understand it, the initial level of damages in the US is set by a jury.
This is then appealed, and re-appealed and so on through many levels of court and after about 20 years the lawyers have collected very fat fees and a compromise of a few percent of the initial compensation level is agreed.
This is then appealed, and re-appealed and so on through many levels of court and after about 20 years the lawyers have collected very fat fees and a compromise of a few percent of the initial compensation level is agreed.
It's probably down to simple economics as to why Ford didn't introduce the safer belt. The bean counters will have sat down and looked at the figures and said it will cost $xxxxxxxxx to fit the new design of belt but we are only likely to get sued for $xxxxxxx due to the fault. Therefore it's cheaper to be sued.
Cost-benefit analysis is great for this sort of stuff.
Cost-benefit analysis is great for this sort of stuff.
I think the point is, that Ford were warned, by the designer, 5 years in advance, that the seatbelt system they were using had a life threatening design defect. They had an opportunity to rectify this by using a later design, but chose not to.
Whether or not they were mandated by regulation to have to choose that specific, updated design isn't really the point- it doesn't affect their statutary duty to ensure the product they are selling operates correctly.
I am certain the belt coming undone during a roll over was not an intentional design feature. You would expect a reasonable, diligent manufacturer to make some adjustment once they knew the defect was there; either by letting potential and existing customers know of the issue, and let them decide whether to buy or keep the product, or to alter the design to remove it.
That Ford did neither seems to me, negligent.
Whether or not they were mandated by regulation to have to choose that specific, updated design isn't really the point- it doesn't affect their statutary duty to ensure the product they are selling operates correctly.
I am certain the belt coming undone during a roll over was not an intentional design feature. You would expect a reasonable, diligent manufacturer to make some adjustment once they knew the defect was there; either by letting potential and existing customers know of the issue, and let them decide whether to buy or keep the product, or to alter the design to remove it.
That Ford did neither seems to me, negligent.
plasticpig said:
It's probably down to simple economics as to why Ford didn't introduce the safer belt. The bean counters will have sat down and looked at the figures and said it will cost $xxxxxxxxx to fit the new design of belt but we are only likely to get sued for $xxxxxxx due to the fault. Therefore it's cheaper to be sued.
Cost-benefit analysis is great for this sort of stuff.
How insightful, Tyler. Cost-benefit analysis is great for this sort of stuff.
Did it or did it not meet the regulations ?
As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
redgriff500 said:
Did it or did it not meet the regulations ?
As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
If you bought a car, knowing it had a seat belt system designed to retain tension in the event of a crash, would you not then be surprised and disappointed if that system wasn't functional, by design? Especially if the manufacturer sold you the car, knowing the system didn't work as promoted.As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
I'd imagine being flung 70 odd yards through the air and killed, carries a reasonable amount of disappointment with that.
Many hundreds of thousands of vehicles are recalled by manufacturers, at their great expense, to rectify design or manufacturing defaults. The cars they sold meet regulations, per se, but the manufacturers understand the liability they are under if they fail to act when they're made aware of an issue.
As has been said, the calculation of whether to act is often down to what option is going to cost the most.
redgriff500 said:
Did it or did it not meet the regulations ?
As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
There were no regulations broken but given the explorer's ford/firestone scandal it is a little short sighted.As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
10 Pence Short said:
redgriff500 said:
Did it or did it not meet the regulations ?
As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
If you bought a car, knowing it had a seat belt system designed to retain tension in the event of a crash, would you not then be surprised and disappointed if that system wasn't functional, by design? Especially if the manufacturer sold you the car, knowing the system didn't work as promoted.As it says it did then I can't see how they are negligent.
Everyone knows a full cage and race harness and helmet would improve your chances in a roll - how many do that ?
Its simply a case of 'acceptable risk'
Perhaps they should have sued the authority who allowed the less safe belts to be fitted ?
I'd imagine being flung 70 odd yards through the air and killed, carries a reasonable amount of disappointment with that.
I bought an MX5... I know that the screen will fold in a rollover - plenty of Youtube footage showing that.
So in a rollover there is a good chance of death, same as if I drive it off a cliff or into a tree.
No one said cars protect you in all crashes.
If I sell you something that meets the regs then either you need to check the regs or campaign for them to be changed.
Or perhaps TRW ought to have refused to supply 'old spec seatbelts' but where does this stop - should manufacturers recall all their old cars that aren't as safe as new ones or is it acceptable that the poor drive more dangerous cars than the rich ? Personally I work on the basis that all adults have to make their own decisions.
So in a rollover there is a good chance of death, same as if I drive it off a cliff or into a tree.
No one said cars protect you in all crashes.
If I sell you something that meets the regs then either you need to check the regs or campaign for them to be changed.
Or perhaps TRW ought to have refused to supply 'old spec seatbelts' but where does this stop - should manufacturers recall all their old cars that aren't as safe as new ones or is it acceptable that the poor drive more dangerous cars than the rich ? Personally I work on the basis that all adults have to make their own decisions.
Edited by redgriff500 on Saturday 20th November 14:53
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff