Our Blog

Ford putting profits over people??

December 2, 2009

As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, The United Supreme Court found evidence that Ford Motor Company was well aware that their Explorer models were not only prone to rollovers but that the vehicles also had a weak roof – yet they chose to ignore this problem.

What deeply disturbs this author is that the cost to Ford would have been $20.00 per vehicle to make the roof stronger. Instead of making these low-cost modifications, Ford put the vehicle on the market.

Now, instead of paying $20.00 per vehicle to make the SUV safe for all, Ford will be paying $55 million dollars to a San Diego woman in punitive damages after she was rendered a paraplegic when her Explorer rolled and the roof crumpled in on her.

I find this example of putting profits over people absolutely disgusting. A mere $20.00 modification could have prevented this tragedy.

Request Your Free Consultation

Get the answers and support you need. Our friendly and experienced Buffalo personal injury lawyers will take the time to understand your case, explain your options, and guide you every step of the way.

Five gold stars representing a 5-star client rating for a Buffalo, NY law firm

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Court Seals Documents at Expense of Consumer Safety

An AAJ article June 4, 2009 looks at the practice of courts sealing litigation documents to the advantage of manufacturers in certain product cases. For example, Bausch & Lomb settled hundreds of cases involving contact solution that involved blindness where the court ordered the documents to be sealed.

Read Blog
Ohio Court Finds Employment Agreement Unenforceable That Requires Attorney to Return 95% of Fees

Court of Appeals Rules on SUM Claims

In a decision dated June 4, 2009, In the Matter of Allstate Insurance Company v. Rivera, the Court of Appeals handed down a ruling regarding SUM claims. Essentially the Court ruled that insurers under a SUM policy are “able to reduce the coverage limits of the tortfeasor’s policy

Read Blog