The accident that gave rise to the case occurred when Benetta Buell-Wilson was driving east on an interstate in San Diego, CA in 2002. She swerved to avoid an object in the road, and the vehicle rolled, collapsing the roof. The injury to her neck caused permanent paralysis from the waist down, reports the Associated Press.
Initially, Ms. Buell-Wilson was awarded $369 million by a jury, but that amount was subsequently reduced twice upon review. The latest amount is final, and the review stands in the face of an earlier Supreme Court decision which had overturned an award of $79.5 million in punitive damages against a tobacco company.
Reader Comments
Tue Mar 11 2008 6:40 PM
Gus says
Now you'll see a HUGE flood of lawsuits based on this same principle; Your car/SUV didn't protect me in all circumstances and now I want millions.
I'm all for stronger and safer vehicles, but if the vehicle in question met the Federal safety standards in place at the time, then that's that. When will people realize that travelling in a vehicle far faster than what nature ever intended for our bodies will always be somewhat dangerous?
Should government mandate a stronger roof structure? Maybe. Should Ford (or any other company) have to pay for every person out there who hurts themselves in an accident? No. If that were the case then we'd quickly have no more cars at all...
Tue Mar 11 2008 9:53 PM
James says
Idiocracy
Wed Mar 12 2008 4:22 AM
mark says
They forgot to say she crashed while trying to eat her double cheese burger while talking on her cell phone. If a car meets the regs set down by the country then there should be no law suits. If a car is made with faults that cause a smash then you can sue but even then the pay outs should be realistic.
Wed Mar 12 2008 7:35 AM
chris says
hey gus, what the hell is going on in that country of yours? and by that i dont mean america.
i'm joking, but like you guys say, when the hell are the courts going to start protecting the companies? the regulators signed off on it. this is like that volvo manslaughter charge. its insanity.
mark: its a ford, even if she was talking on her cell phone, it had sync so she had at least one hand on the wheel (unless ur talking about one of those burgers from carls jr, i hear those things are two handers).
looks like bill ford III isnt getting payed for another 3 years.
Wed Mar 12 2008 1:19 PM
Harry says
guys if you look into the history behind the ford rollover case, ford destroyed around 50 of 100 documents showing the the explorer was a rollover prone car. These were tests conducted and asked during the trials by government agencies. Also engineers suggested that modifications to the car be made to decrease the rollover tendency. Ford decided to implement the less costly and most superficial ones. So it's not the fat lady's fault the car sucked..
Wed Mar 12 2008 1:58 PM
Gus says
It's not the fat lady's fault the car sucked, but it's the government's fault for not improving the rules.
The point is, every vehicle is dangerous. You could argue every SUV is a "rollover prone car".
Thu Mar 13 2008 6:38 PM
Harout says
It's the fat lady's fault for buying a Ford in the first place....the name says it all, cheap quality, stupid American car.
Sun Mar 16 2008 10:33 PM
Edward says
The person who suffers an accident like this has no legal claim what so ever if the seat belt is not used. It´s called assuming the risk. If Ford is at fault, then sue the hell outta´ them!
Leave a Comment
Login or register to leave comments.
Please keep your comments on topic. Your involvement is governed by our Privacy Policy and Terms.