Georgia siblings win $1.7 BILLION from
Ford for 2014 crash that killed their
parents: Roof of the couple's F-250 pickup
crunched so easily that they 'might as
well have been driving a convertible'
Daily Mail (UK),
by
Jennifer Smith
Original Article
Posted By: Ribicon,
8/22/2022 10:46:01 AM
A pair of Georgia siblings have been awarded $1.7billion in punitive damages from Ford for a 2014 car crash that killed their parents.
In 2014, Voncile and Melvin Hill died after their Ford F-250 blew a tire and rolled over. The couple—aged 62 and 74—were on their way to pick up a new tractor part to be used on their farm in Georgia.
A jury this week ruled that they should have survived the crash and would have had the roof of their F-250 been designed properly.
Instead, it crunched under the impact of the roll and the pair later died of injuries.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
envirodude 8/22/2022 10:50:14 AM (No. 1256032)
They are built out of aluminum now. What did ford expect?
11 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Jethro bo 8/22/2022 10:55:49 AM (No. 1256043)
Don't have enough details to understand all the issues. But four year old tires that had a 'blowout' that caused a roll over is kinda odd. Blowouts happen. Cars, even at high speed don't roll over. But then again, no car is roller proof. A bit more details about the crash would help. Still, 1.7 billion seems out now proportion. Had they been murdered on the streets of any Democrat city the kids wouldn't even get an apology note.
20 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Yepper 8/22/2022 11:14:46 AM (No. 1256059)
For me, the payout is irrelevant compared to the state getting 75%. What the heck??? Anyone know the reason for this?
15 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Vaquero45 8/22/2022 11:20:22 AM (No. 1256065)
Blew a tire, and rolled over? Sounds like driver error to me.
13 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Axeman 8/22/2022 11:34:18 AM (No. 1256080)
Upsidedown picture: three different tires out of four, two fairly new on opposite corners- all terrain tires, one back one more than half worn- M&S tire, front passenger tire blown- bald.
But that cab flattened. I have a similar truck. I have not seen this type of collapsed cab before.
9 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
seamusm 8/22/2022 11:39:25 AM (No. 1256082)
The value of a life is now $1.7 billion? Unless of course it is a fetus then it apparently is worth nothing. An award worth more than $1,000 per vehicle sold? Ridiculous! Most of these verdicts get overturned or markedly reduced on appeal but I've never understood how grief is monetized by stupid jurists.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Bogasso 8/22/2022 11:45:47 AM (No. 1256088)
Roof pillars are already so thick on newer vehicles for rollover protection, that they create huge blind zones. They hide a whole vehicle in the driver’s field of vision within an intersection or a lane away.
And… Georgia gets 75% of the award? Obscene!
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 8/22/2022 11:59:31 AM (No. 1256104)
If the truck met the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards there should have been zero punitive damages, only compensatory damages.
12 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
zephyrgirl 8/22/2022 12:02:07 PM (No. 1256108)
Excessive punitive damages will be reduced on appeal, and you can bet Ford will appeal. If blame is apportioned among various people, why aren't the parents apportioned some blame for driving on mismatched tires, one of which is completely bald? Aren't car owners a little bit responsible for maintaining a safe vehicle?
12 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
mc squared 8/22/2022 12:29:40 PM (No. 1256143)
There is no debate. FTA: A jury this week ruled that they should have survived the crash...
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
joew9 8/22/2022 12:59:44 PM (No. 1256181)
"Pep Boys, the auto shop that fitted the vehicle's tires four years before the crash"
Looking at Plaintiffs' Exhibit 216. Clearly not four identical tires. In fact it looks to me like 3 types of tires.
Even though there is damage making the characteristics of the passenger front hard to see it just doesn't look like the same brand as the driver rear nor the same amount of tread wear. Whereas the passenger rear and driver front look fairly new and identical
Rule of thumb: Tires that are 4 years old have reached their shelf life even if mileage and tread are not used up. Tire rot sets in and they should be replaced. The age of the tires and the obvious fact that the tires were a mish mash of types and not even mounted symmetrically (the two newest matching ones should have been both in front) indicates to me that they were not properly caring for their vehicle to approach anything near safe to drive. The jury should not have awarded a nickel - punitive or otherwise.
5 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
joew9 8/22/2022 1:11:15 PM (No. 1256199)
Surely any jury with brains could see the poor condition of the tires revealed in Plaintiff's Exhibit 216.
This demonstrates that the jury must have been picked for characteristics of lacking any aptitude of mechanical function. Frankly I think voir dire should be banned. It has led to ridiculous verdicts.
I've been struck from every jury which I've been called at the moment I revealed I was an engineer.
5 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
jimboscott 8/22/2022 1:14:51 PM (No. 1256204)
1,
And they are built out of aluminum to satisfy the EPA... what did the EPA expect?
4 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
mc squared 8/22/2022 1:35:37 PM (No. 1256222)
#1 and 13: Aluminum bodies didn't start until the next year - 2015. The truck in question was a 2014.
'Ford switched its F-150 truck body to aluminum on the 2015 model.'
https://trafficautodriving.com/when-did-ford-use-aluminum-trucks/
3 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Christopher L 8/22/2022 2:16:19 PM (No. 1256256)
If the design met the requirements of 49 CFR § 571.216a - Standard No. 216a; Roof crush resistance, I don't think the award will survive appeal.
And I too question the 75% cut that goes to the state of Georgia, seem like an open invitation to every ambulance chaser in America to come and have fun in Georgia courts.
3 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Venturer 8/22/2022 2:46:26 PM (No. 1256274)
How did the Rescue people get them out of the car without cutting the top off it.
I have gone to many accidents and in a roll over like that the first thing is to cut the top off the car.
2 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
laurenc 8/22/2022 2:48:35 PM (No. 1256279)
The truck was a 2002 model - the accident happened in 2014.
2 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Bogasso 8/22/2022 5:03:53 PM (No. 1256369)
I’m way late here, but look at the damage. It doesn’t look like a roll over, which would have folded the roof over to one side or the other. It looks to me like the truck caught a ditch or something and got launched, then landed flat on the roof. Likely with much more energy and violence than a roll. That type of impact is a different animal and I’d think, much more challenging to design to. It goes back to the question about the requirements at the time they designed for the model year.
2 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
DW626 8/22/2022 5:16:00 PM (No. 1256379)
Holy moly that’s some settlement!
I mean I’m sorry to hear about this family's loss. No dollar amount can replace them. But it seems rather excessive.
1 person likes this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Strike3 8/22/2022 5:56:07 PM (No. 1256393)
Tires and brakes are the two most important parts on any vehicle. That front tire is way beyond its shelf life.
3 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
DVC 8/22/2022 6:46:48 PM (No. 1256435)
Stupid award amount. I'm sorry but NO injury is worth that amount. This is certain to be reduced by a sane appeal court.
And as to the aluminum....those didn't come in until 2015, so this is unlikely to have been a 2015 model, although I guess
it is possible. Hey, no roof stand up that well, especially truck roofs. The chassis is really heavy. I see a lot of roll over
bars installed in PUs in the bed area to avoid messing up the cab. Might be a good idea.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Ribicon"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Why not $3 billion, or $5 billion? What is the impact of ever-increasing federal fuel economy standards on design decisions? And why does the state of Georgia get to keep 75% of the payout?