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.

Our Practice Areas

Read More Articles

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

Amusement Park Must Keep Patrons Safe

As an attorney who has handled many amusement park injury cases against parks like Six Flags and others, I am concerned when employees continue to fail to keep their patrons safe. An employee of the park knows the ride better than the customers and it is that persons

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

Fall Was The Result Of Elevated Related Risk

In, NICOMETI v. THE VINEYARDS OF FREDONIA, LLC (June 2013) the Fourth Department held that contrary to the contention of defendants, the Supreme Court properly concluded that plaintiff’s fall was the result of an elevation-related risk for which Labor Law § 240 (1) provides protection.

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

Sovereign Immunity Grounds Do Not Always Apply

In Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving v. Lewiston Golf Course Corporation, (4th Dept. 2013) the court held that “The central question on this appeal is whether defendant Lewiston Golf Course Corporation (LGCC), a corporation formed under the laws of the Seneca Nation of Indians (Nation or SNI), is protected

Read Blog