http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/ford_explorer_rollover Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:36:56 -0800 pixel-app en http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11234 Sat, 28 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11234
Firestone previously paid an undisclosed settlement in the case.

Plaintiff attorneys touted the case as the first Ford-Firestone case to go all the way to a verdict since Firestone tire recalls started in 1999.

"You have a situation where all the parties agreed there was a tire defect, but the question was who's ultimately responsible for the accident," a Corpus Christi plaintiff attorney said.

Attorneys for plaintiff Rose Maria Munoz argued that the vehicle had a problem known as a rear axle "skate" that led to the driver's inability to handle the vehicle after a de-tread. Attorneys also said Ford had a role in designing Firestone tires.

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said the case would be appealed.

"Our concern goes out to Ms. Munoz, but this accident was caused by driver error," she said.

Braugh said the case also brought attention to the issue of tire aging and what automobile manufacturers needed to let consumers know.

"How do you age your tire? When is a tire old?" he said. He said the manufacturers have been aware of the problem since the late 1980s, but failed to provide information.

The vehicle in question was using an original spare tire sold with the vehicle that was more than 10 years old.

The accident occurred in 2002 near Poteet, Texas. Munoz was one of four occupants of an Explorer that had been sold as a 1999 Mazda Navajo. The left rear Firestone tire on the Navajo de-treaded, and the vehicle rolled several times. Munoz, who was ejected from the vehicle, was the only one seriously injured.

The three-week trial was before a jury of seven women and five men.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11121 Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11121
Hey, maybe there is something special about the holiday spirit after all.

A Texas lawyer and Ford Motor Company, whose ferocious legal wrangling in South Texas drew national attention in recent months, spent December sorting things out.

"There has been settlement of nine cases, and I know Ford and lawyer are going to be sitting down and talking about some other cases," said Ford lawyer David Prichard.

Prichard, who several months ago accused Watts of pursuing a "jihad" against the auto maker, struggled to explain the sudden - and perhaps only temporary cessation of hostilities.

"I don't think it represents a dramatic change at Ford, which has always been willing to talk about reasonably resolving cases," Prichard said.

Until recently, Ford and the lawyer tended to duke out every case in court.

Among the cases recently settled were three that had resulted in jury verdicts totaling $100 million against Ford.

One of them, a case in Crystal City that resulted in a $31 million verdict against Ford, was also an embarrassment to Watts because of irregularities with the jury and with legal representation of Ford's co-defendant. Ford had appealed that case, claiming the verdict was tainted.

The texas, who has created a profitable cottage industry suing Ford for rollover accidents involving its SUVs, had about 40 cases pending against the auto company, with a dozen or more set to go to trial this year.

He said Ford's policy of refusing to settle resulted in many cases going to trial. But, that changed, he said, when the auto company sent out feelers late this year.

"They called one of my lawyers in Houston and said they wanted to have a meeting. They wanted to talk about every case we had," he said.

"It started off with a good bit of confrontation and mistrust, but both sides committed to work through that," he said. "The hope was that we could do a business deal, and hopefully we got that."

Because the settlements were confidential, neither side would discuss how many millions of dollars changed hands.

"We have a large number of cases against Ford on file, and about 10 of them are set for trial between now and June," he said. "If Ford wants to resolve them on terms that are acceptable to our clients, we're certainly ready."
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10951 Sun, 20 Nov 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10951
Safety Analysis and Forensic Engineering, which performs research for plaintiffs suing automakers, says internal Ford documents show that a substantial number of 1999 to 2001 Explorers likely do not comply with the federal vehicle roof strength standard.

The firm is asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate. NHTSA has placed the petition and Ford documents collected by SAFE Research in its public docket and plans to respond within 120 days.

"This situation exposes owners of these vehicles to increased risk of serious injury in rollovers," said Stephen Forrest, senior engineer and principal with SAFE Research.

Ford disputes the claims. It said all of its vehicles meet or exceed federal safety standards and SAFE Research misinterpreted company documents and drew conclusions about tests run on an experimental vehicle that was substantially different from the SUVs on the road.

"Members of SAFE primarily earn their living by working for plaintiff attorneys, and much of their data is derived from our own testing of a prototype vehicle that was never sold to the public," said Ford spokesman Dan Jarvis.

The dispute provides a window into the often murky world of big-time auto litigation, where internal documents unearthed during the course of trials are examined and interpreted by both sides.

The latest assertions may only intensify the growing debate over vehicle roof strength. Ford faces hundreds of lawsuits stemming from Explorer rollovers. And the company already has been hit with several multimillion-dollar jury verdicts in cases in which plaintiffs alleged the Explorer's roof is too weak.

The documents cited by SAFE Research were introduced as evidence in a trial in Texas in October stemming from an Explorer rollover accident that killed two teenagers. Forrest testified about the documents filed with NHTSA for the plaintiffs. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said it was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount after Forrest testified.

SAFE Research contends Ford made design changes over the years that weakened the roof of the Explorer. Ford made an exception to an internal company standard to build roofs 25 percent stronger than the federal roof strength minimum, the firm said.

In 1999, years after Ford had certified that its third-generation Explorer met federal safety standards, engineers discovered the roof was weaker than previously thought either below the federal standard or so close to it that some Explorers likely were manufactured below the minimum because of normal variation, according to SAFE Research.

Ford completely redesigned the Explorer for the 2002 model year and beyond.

SAFE Research specializes in roof strength issues, and its engineers have testified on behalf of plaintiffs in numerous rollover trials, many of which have involved Ford. Forrest trained at the General Motors Technical Institute in Flint.

NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson said the agency usually responds to petitions within 120 days and would offer no comment on the merits of the charges by SAFE Research. "Our compliance people have received it," Tyson said. "We are evaluating it."

If NHTSA finds a vehicle in noncompliance with federal law, the manufacturer is subject to fines and mandatory recalls.

The Ford Explorer has withstood challenges to its safety. The automaker endured years of public relations battering over the Explorer's safety record during the Firestone tire recall.

Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. and numerous safety groups charged the SUV rolled over too easily, adding to the number of crashes, deaths and injuries. NHTSA later found no evidence that the vehicle rolled over more frequently than other comparable SUVs.

In its petition to NHTSA, SAFE Research's charge does not pertain to the Explorer's stability. Rather, the firm contends the 1999 to 2001 Explorer likely does not meet federal safety standard 216, which stipulates that vehicle roofs must withstand a force equal to at least 1.5 times the vehicle's unloaded weight.

Safety advocates have long complained that safety standard 216 is a toothless law that hasn't been updated since 1971. NHTSA has proposed upgrading the 216 test to require a 2.5 strength-to-weight minimum.

A trail of documents

Ford company documents attached to SAFE Research's petition show the automaker relied on the roof-strength tests of an earlier-generation Explorer to certify the 1999 model year. A series of five tests were conducted between Jan. 14, 1993, and March 22, 1995. The Explorer appeared to pass the roof-strength requirement in those tests, averaging a 1.69 strength-to-weight ratio. Ford had an internal roof-strength standard of 1.875, or 25 percent stronger than the federal minimum.

Ford made an exception for the Explorer, as a memo dated March 1992 explains. The memo was called a "Regulatory Engineering Design Standard Deviation." The document outlines that a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.63 would be sufficient for the Explorer, since enough roof-crush tests had been conducted to ensure, within the expected 9 percent testing variation, the SUVs would still exceed the federal minimum of 1.5.In May 1999, while studying whether to change the way the windshield adheres to the body frame, Ford engineer R.G. Roose produced a report titled "1999 Explorer Roof Crush Certification (FMVSS 216)." The test yielded a strength-to-weight ratio of 1.48 with a maximum unloaded-vehicle weight of 4,700 pounds, the same weight used in the 1993 and 1995 certification tests.

But the 4,700-pound weight is crossed out and a weight of 4,600 pounds is used instead, yielding a ratio of 1.52 barely over the federal minimum.

"After the test, the requestor indicated the wrong maximum weight was used," the test report notes.

A second roof-crush test, conducted on Oct. 22, 1999, yielded similar results.

Forrest argued that whether the 4,600-pound or 4,700-pound vehicle weight is used, many Explorers wouldn't meet the standards. That's because normal variation from vehicle to vehicle means a portion of the SUVs sold during that time period would fall below that standard.

The debate ultimately comes down to this: Ford says the roof tests were done on an experimental vehicle that never hit the road; SAFE Research says the documents show that Ford's engineers looked at the issue of whether the modified windshield explained the drop in roof strength and concluded it didn't.

Forrest said the two 1999 tests are the only known instances where Ford conducted a roof-crush test on that version of the Explorer.

"SAFE has analyzed sufficient evidence to suggest that Ford has produced Explorer vehicles to the public that do not pass [safety standard] 216, thus violating federal law," the petition reads.

Ford officials said all of its compliance tests have demonstrated that the 1999 to 2001 Explorer met safety standard 216. The company declined to provide The Detroit News with test reports to support the contention.

Furthermore, Ford said an independent test firm conducted three tests on Explorers and showed that the SUV met standard 216. Forrest said those tests were done specifically for litigation and do not hold as much weight as tests run by Ford engineers. Ford said NHTSA has conducted roof strength compliance tests on two different generations of the Explorer model years 1996 and 2002 and found them to be in compliance.

“Ford Motor Co. is confident that if NHTSA tested the 1999 through 2001 Explorers, it would reach the same conclusion,” Ford spokesman Jarvis said.

Under federal law, manufacturers must certify that their vehicles meet minimum federal safety standards before they can be sold in the United States. Automakers test the vehicles themselves to ensure they comply with the dozens of regulatory requirements. The companies certify their vehicles meet federal standards by placing a label inside the door jamb.

For vehicles that were manufactured before Nov. 1, 2000, the penalty for noncompliance was $1,100 per violation, up to a maximum of $925,000. After the Tread Act was signed into law on that date, the penalties increased to $5,000 per vehicle, up to a maximum of $15 million.

Under the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act, automakers can be required to recall, replace or buy back any vehicles that are not in compliance.

Other safety experts who have reviewed SAFE Research's filing also are raising questions.

"There's ample evidence to question whether Ford legitimately certified these vehicles," said Carl Nash, a former NHTSA official who now works for XPrts LLC, a research firm in Santa Barbara, Calif., that frequently testifies against automakers in roof-crush cases.

Experts weigh in

Ben Parr, a retired director of automotive research for State Farm Insurance Co. who has been studying the roof strength issue for the last year, reviewed the SAFE Research petition. Parr also has testified against automakers in roof-crush cases.

Before his career at State Farm, Parr was an engineering manager at GM. Parr said when he worked with sheet metal, the rule of thumb was a 15 percent margin of error to provide for adequate safety.

"If you are down to 3 percent, 4 percent, 5 percent, you don't have enough," Parr said. "There goes your cushion."

Campbell Laird, a professor of materials science engineering at the University of Pennsylvania with 45 years of professional experience, reviewed the SAFE Research petition at the request of The Detroit News. Laird has been an observer of the federal work on roof-strength regulations and weighed in with formal comments as NHTSA was preparing to revise safety standard 216.

Laird said SAFE had presented enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

"I find it very plausible," Laird said. "Ford did not meet its own internal standards."

Ford wages legal battle

The charges from SAFE Research are the latest in a series of revelations that have emerged from Ford documents used as evidence in lawsuits. In March, a Jacksonville, Fla., trial involving a 2000 Ford Explorer that rolled over resulted in a $10.2 million verdict for the family of Claire Duncan, a 26-year-old engineer who died from a skull fracture.

Documents introduced in that trial showed that Ford has twice reduced the roof strength of the Explorer as it has redesigned the vehicle. In addition, documents and videos of tests conducted by Ford's Volvo subsidiary called into question Ford's contention that stronger roofs do not provide any meaningful protection against injury.

The Volvo documents showed that the Swedish carmaker, which is considered the industry leader in safety technology, made strenuous efforts to strengthen the roof of its XC-90 SUV to reduce the likelihood of injury in rollover crashes.

Ford has been waging a legal battle to keep its documents out of the public realm.

Normally, documents used as evidence in a jury trial become part of public record. But Ford is arguing in courts in Jacksonville, Fla., and Corpus Christi and Brownsville, Texas, to seal evidence on the grounds it would reveal trade secrets.

Some documents, including Volvo test reports and videos, were placed in NHTSA's public docket earlier this year. NHTSA removed them after Ford objected.
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10773 Mon, 03 Oct 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10773
The family had sued the automaker, saying the roof of their truck failed to protect Jennifer Garcia in the crash that caused the Ford truck to roll over. The accident occurred as Garcia was traveling with her parents to Corpus Christi in a 1993 Ford F-150 and their truck was struck by a motorist leaving a fruit stand near Sebastian.

Ray Marchan, an attorney for the family, said he hoped the state court lawsuit would result in better products from Ford.

Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said Ford products are safe and meet strict government safety standards.

"Our condolences go out to the family, but Miss Garcia died because of the negligence of another driver hitting the Garcia vehicle while traveling at highway speeds," Vokes said in a written statement.

"The lack of physical evidence clearly proved that she was not wearing her seat belt. This is another tragic reminder that seat belts can help save lives only when they are worn," Vokes said.

Marchan said Texas Department of Public Safety reports show the girl was wearing her seat belt.

Ford plans to appeal the jury's decision.

The jury found Ford 90 percent at fault in Garcia's death. She spent 18 days in a coma and later died.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10539 Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10539
The need for such changes has been a matter of disagreement between the auto industry and safety groups. Automakers have argued that strengthening roofs does not improve safety on the top-heavy SUVs that tend to rollover more frequently, but whose luxury price tags translate into big profits.

Safety advocates have taken the position that roof strength standards must be more demanding and they will push for tougher regulations and more effective tests that simulate an actual rollover. They contend that the current standard has resulted in weak roofs that are directly responsible for thousands of rollover deaths, particularly in SUVs.

Deaths in rollover crashes, which account for more than one-third of automobile accident fatalities, have increased in 2004 to10,553 from 10,442 in 2003.

Addressing these concerns, the federal rules will apply to large sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks like the Chevrolet Suburban, the Dodge Ram and the Ford Expedition. Currently, the law exempts any vehicle over 6,000 pounds.

Although the new rules will affect future automobile models, they will not serve to end numerous clams automakers already face over the issue of roof strength in the context of ongoing personal injury and wrongful death cases around the country. Juries in Texas, California, and Nebraska have already awarded millions of dollars in damages to rollover crash victims or their survivors.

In a recent Florida trial concerning the rollover of a Ford Explorer, evidence showed that Volvo had made strengthening the roof of its SUV, the XC-90, a priority during the design process. The Volvo documents directly contradicted Ford's longstanding claim that roof strength was unrelated to injury in a rollover crash.
 ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9528 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9528
Ford said it had not read the study by a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, but said strengthening roofs would not further protect people.

The report by Martha Bidez examined tests conducted by Ford that were released as part of a Florida lawsuit involving a 26-year-old woman killed in a rollover accident while driving a Ford Explorer.

Bidez said catastrophic injuries to the head and spinal cord and death result when a roof is crushed in a rollover. Stronger roofs would have better resist being crushed, thus saving lives, she said.

"Strengthening roofs and installing other basic safety devices, such as side head air bags, safety glass and pre-tensioned belts, is the only way to save lives in rollover crashes," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, the group that announced the study's findings.

"If the roofs didn't collapse in a rollover crash, the people in the vehicle have a far better chance of surviving," she said.

The government's auto safety agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is expected to issue new requirements this year about roof strength.

Ford took issue with Bidez's work. "It appears to be based on previous material prepared by Martha Bidez, which is seriously flawed, unscientific, and it misinterprets the data she is relying on," the company said in a statement.

"Simply strengthening the roof won't improve the safety of SUVs and other passenger vehicles in rollovers," the company said. "Years of testing show strengthening the roof will not affect the outcome of the crash for the simple reason that the injury mechanics are not related to how much the roof is deformed in a rollover crash."

Safety groups say that when a roof is crushed, it makes safety belts less likely to work and the occupant is more likely to be ejected from the vehicle.

The study was based on tests released in a Jacksonville, Fla., lawsuit in which Claire Duncan died in a May 2001 rollover crash along Interstate 95 in Virginia.

The Florida jury ruled on March 18 that the Explorer's roof was defective. Ford was ordered to pay Duncan's husband $10.2 million for economic damages, pain and suffering. Ford has said it plans to appeal the verdict.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9535 Thu, 31 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9535
The report, authored by an engineering professor at the University of Alabama and paid for by $200,000 from Tab Turner, contradicts federal testimony by Ford and other automakers that no correlation exists between deformed vehicle roofs and head and neck injuries sustained in rollovers.

The report comes as federal regulators are in the final stages of proposing the first significant upgrades in roof-strength standards in more than 30 years.

The Detroit News reported last year that an estimated 7,000 people are killed or injured annually in rollover accidents in which the roof was deformed, according to federal statistics.

The study of four rollover tests of Ford Explorers conducted in 1998 and 1999 found that the roofs collapsed before injuries occurred to crash-test dummies, according to University of Alabama-Birmingham professor Martha Bidez.

The findings dispute the assertions by automakers that vehicle occupants are injured when they "dive" into the roof during a rollover accident.

In her report, Bidez said that "significant deformation occurred prior to peak injury." The data, she said, establish "a clear causal relationship" between head and neck injuries and crushed roofs.

Ford said in a statement that it had not yet analyzed the study but criticized previous work done by Bidez. "It appears to be based on previous material prepared by Martha Bidez, which is seriously flawed, unscientific and it misinterprets the data she is relying on," Ford said.

The automaker repeated its previous position that roof strength is not a key factor in preventing rollover injuries and fatalities.

"Simply strengthening the roof won't improve the safety of SUVs and passenger vehicles in rollovers," Ford said.

Ford and other automakers face dozens of pending lawsuits related to roof strength in rollover accidents.

On March 18, a Jacksonville, Fla., jury ordered Ford to pay $10.2 million to the family of a woman killed in an Explorer rollover crash where the roof collapsed. Ford has said it plans to appeal the verdict.

A NHTSA spokesman said Wednesday that proposed changes to roof-strength rules first enacted in 1971 will likely be made public this summer.

"We have completed our work on a proposed new standard," said Rae Tyson of NHTSA. "It is undergoing final department review and we should have something out in June or July."

Tyson said the agency had not yet seen the study presented Wednesday.

In the report, Bidez and two associates analyzed data from sensors and video cameras used to document four separate rollover crash tests conducted for Ford by an outside supplier in 1998 and 1999.

In the tests, the Explorers were placed on an angle on a moving dolly that accelerated to 30 miles an hour and then stopped, forcing a rollover.

Data from the tests first surfaced in litigation against Ford, and was referenced last year by Ford in testimony to NHTSA.

According to Bidez, the data show that the Explorer roofs collapsed before injuries were recorded by crash-test dummies. "One-hundred percent of the time, roof-crush preceded the catastrophic injuries measured," Bidez said Wednesday. "Not only was there a relationship established, it was 100% of the time."

One prominent auto-safety advocate said the report underscores the need for tougher federal standards. "Roof strength is absolutely critical to saving lives and preventing injuries in rollovers," said Joan Claybrook, president of Washington-based Public Citizen and former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Claybrook said Ford and other automakers have "misled" NHTSA by denying any link between roof strength and injuries.

She further criticized the 34-year-old NHTSA roof-strength standard, in which static pressure is applied to one of the A-pillars framing a vehicle's windshield.

Claybrook advocated so-called "dynamic" tests like those Ford performed internally in 1998 and 1999, in which a vehicle is actually rolled over under controlled conditions.

Tyson declined to say what type of test NHTSA will recommend in its proposed revisions to the roof-strength standard.

However, he said regulators "have a lot of problems" with dynamic tests because they are difficult to repeat precisely.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9529 Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9529
The report, written by a professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, debunks what some auto manufacturers have said for years: that in rollover crashes, people sustain head and neck injuries when they dive into the roofs of their vehicles, not when the roofs crush into the peoples heads.

Automakers have made this claim to argue against government requirements for stronger roofs on vehicles and to shield themselves from liability in lawsuits brought by families of rollover crash victims.

But the report written by Martha Bidez, Ph.D., analyzes Fords own tests to show that roof crush does, in fact, occur prior to injurious neck loads during rollovers. Thus, improving a vehicles resistance to roof crush would prevent catastrophic head and spinal cord injuries and deaths.

The report is particularly important because the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is on the verge of proposing a new roof strength standard, although many auto safety experts do not expect it to improve safety in a meaningful way.

The current standard dates from 1971 and has not been updated despite repeated promises by agency officials to do so.

In addition, new industry documents made public only recently show that while Ford has denied a link between roof strength and rollover crash injuries, its subsidiary, Volvo, has recognized that strengthening roofs and installing side head air bags and pre-tensioned belts in rollover crashes will save lives. Volvo produces the XC-90, a vehicle with a roof that does not crush in during rollover tests.

Every year, almost 10,000 people are killed in rollover crashes, and 6,000 to 7,000 deaths a year are related to roof collapse and roof crush.

"Strengthening roofs and installing other basic safety devices, such as side head air bags, safety glass and pre-tensioned belts, is the only way to save lives in rollover crashes," said Public Citizen President Joan Claybrook.

"For automakers to claim that head injuries are the fault of people diving into the roofs of their cars is ludicrous. If the roofs dont collapse in a rollover crash, the people in the vehicle have a far better chance of surviving. The industry should strengthen roofs."

Added Bidez, "This report presents the results of some of the industrys own rollover test data as unequivocal evidence that roof crush can and does cause catastrophic injury and death. It underscores the urgent need for a significantly upgraded dynamic roof strength standard to protect belted occupants in rollovers."

The report also shows that:

Ford misrepresented the meaning of its data in presentations to NHTSA;

The dynamic tests done by Ford demonstrated consistent results that could be repeated with dynamic tests when viewed in the framework of occupant injury and correlated with real-world data on rollovers;

Neck position is a crucial component of how severely injured someone is in a rollover crash, yet Ford arranged the neck position of its dummies in some of its published studies, which produced misleading results on the impact on the spinal cord of roof crush; and

Any investigation of roof strength and rollover crashes should analyze total harm to occupants, not just deaths.

The current roof crush standard was enacted in 1971 and took effect in 1973. The one-sided static test requires one section of a vehicles roof to withstand 1.5 times the vehicles weight. The test assumes the windshield remains intact throughout the crash, despite the fact that in rollover crashes, the windshield is usually gone by the first quarter turn.

Once the windshield is gone, the roof loses a third of its strength, making it far more likely that the roof will crush in and making it easier for people to be ejected.

Over the years, NTHSA officials have promised many times to upgrade the standard and require automakers to make stronger roofs. But the agency has dragged its feet and has not issued a rule. The agency is expected to propose a minor upgrade a placebo to respond to demands for stronger vehicle roofs, Public Citizen said.

It is not known whether the agency will address pre-tensioning of belts in rollovers. Currently, there is no federal test for belt performance in rollovers. Side head air bags are the subject of a separate rulemaking, but it does not address inflation in rollovers.

One of the basic tenets of auto safety is that to prevent injuries, there can be little or no intrusion. It is essential to prevent parts of the vehicle from closing in and coming into contact with occupants in the vehicle, Claybrook said. Other key injury prevention techniques involve padding and adequate restraint systems.

So by strengthening roofs and ensuring that they stay intact during rollover crashes and installing side head air bags, safety glass in side windows and pre-tensioned belts, which keep occupants in their seats many of the deaths and injuries that occur in rollover crashes can be prevented, she said.

"The auto industry has misled NHTSA and the public solely to protect its bottom line. But in doing so, it has jeopardized the lives of thousands of motorists every year," Claybrook said.

"NHTSA should not allow itself to be hoodwinked any longer. Automakers know how to increase survivability in rollover crashes, as the documents show. NHTSA needs to require all manufacturers to follow suit."]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9530 Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9530
The jury in Zavala County District Court ordered Ford to pay $31 million in compensatory damages in the case, according to a Ford spokesperson.

Two of the four occupants in the 2000-model Explorer were killed in the rollover accident in May 2003.

Ford said it will appeal the verdict.

Ford is battling scores of lawsuits over the safety of Explorers manufactured through the 2001 model year.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9531 Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9531
The class certified by the court generally includes persons who purchased or leased Ford Explorers in California during the period from 1990 through August 2000. According to evidence presented to the court, Ford sold over 440,000 Explorers in California during that time period.

It was in August 2000 that Firestone initiated a recall of tires used on the Ford Explorer because of the large number of fatalities that occurred when Explorers rolled over after the tread separated from their tires. The plaintiffs allege that further investigation revealed that Ford had suggested underinflating the tires to conceal the Explorer's rollover problems.

Ford's internal documents indicate that Ford ignored its engineers' advice that the Explorer SUV needed design revisions to prevent rollover accidents and fatal injuries, according to a Bloomberg news article of February 2, 2005.

In 2004, Ford lost 2 Explorer rollover cases at trial, including a verdict in San Diego of $150 million, after reduction by the trial judge, and a $5.3 million verdict in Fort Myers, Florida. In addition to the California class action case, there are about two dozen trials claiming defects in Explorers that are set to take place this year.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8350 Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8350
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study of 2004 model vehicles including cars, SUV and vans showed that three different Ford Explorer models have nearly a 28 percent chance of landing on their sides when the driver turns the wheel sharply.

The Explorer Sport Trac two-wheel drive was slammed as the vehicle most prone to rollover, with a likelihood of 34.8 percent.

It was given only two stars out of a possible five.

Another Explorer, the four-door, two-wheel drive version, was tied for second worst among the SUVs studied.

It was given three stars and a 28.3 percent chance of flipping tied with the Mercury Mountaineer, GMC Yukon and the Chevy Tahoe.

Safety experts concluded years ago that SUVs are more prone to roll than passenger vehicles in single-car crashes.

But this year for the first time, the NHTSA assigned a percentage risk for rollover in addition to its star ratings, which are based on a mathematical calculation of the vehicle's measurements and a road test including very sharp turns.

Ford is countering the study's claims by saying private studies show the Explorer models perform the same or better than other SUVs.

"We're trying to work through the data and see how NHTSA's applying these numbers," said Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley.

"While we believe the NHTSA rating system has some value, we don't believe it's a good indicator of how a vehicle performs in the real world."

The Chrysler Pacifica topped the list as the highest rated SUV. It was given four stars and a calculated 13 percent chance of rolling over.

The only vehicle to be awarded five stars was the Mazda RX-8 passenger car which has a mere 8 percent chance of flipping.

The highest-rated van was the Nissan Quest. It has only a 12.1 percent chance of rolling over and was given four stars.

Rollovers represent a quarter of all traffic deaths, which rose to 43,000 in 2003, statistics show.

Rollover deaths in SUVs rose by 10 percent to 2,700 in 2003, according to government figures.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8146 Fri, 04 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8146
A San Diego County jury on Thursday ordered Ford to pay $246 million in punitive damages to Benetta Buell-Wilson, after awarding her and her husband compensatory damages of more than $122.6 million two days earlier.

The verdict marked Ford's first loss after 11 victories in rollover lawsuits involving the Explorer, the nation's best-selling sport-utility vehicle.

The trial, which began March 15, involved a January 2002 accident on an interstate highway near Alpine, east of San Diego. Buell-Wilson swerved to avoid a metal object and lost control of her 1997 Explorer, which rolled 4 1/2 times.

The 49-year-old San Diego mother of two offered to knock $100 million off the damage award if Ford recalled millions of Explorers and corrected the design flaws that she says left her wheelchair-bound.

"I'm hoping they'll fix what's out there because I don't want what's happened to me to happen to anyone else," Buell-Wilson said.

In a statement, Ford insisted the Explorer was safe.

"Although the offer makes a great sound bite, it doesn't change the facts: The Explorer meets or exceeds all federal safety standards. There is no defect with the Explorer," spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said. "The Explorer is an outstanding vehicle with a solid safety record and we will continue to aggressively defend our products."

Ford has sold more than 5 million Explorers since the vehicle was introduced in 1990, she said.

]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/6012 Thu, 22 May 2003 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/6012
How tests work

Possible components of a dynamic rollover test:
Fishhook maneuver. Uses an automated steering controller to steer the vehicle quickly to the right and then quickly to the left. The test is done repeatedly at rising speeds until the vehicle tips.

J-turn. Test uses a steering controller to turn the vehicle one way until it turns in a J-shaped path. Test also done repeatedly at rising speeds until the vehicle tips.

Current test:

Static Stability. Divide one half of a vehicle's width by the height of its center of gravity.

But even before it begins, observers question whether such a test could duplicate what really happens on the road, especially because many factors can contribute to rollover crashes.

Finding a way to account for driver behavior, road conditions and vehicle characteristics when calculating a vehicle's rollover score would be a major hurdle as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration develops its first so-called dynamic rollover test in the next couple of months. Testing could start as early as September, NHTSA said.

Congress passed a bill requiring dynamic rollover testing after the 2000 recall of millions of Firestone tires of a type involved in deadly rollover accidents with Ford's popular Explorer.

The latest rollover test will likely supplement the agency's existing "static stability" formula, which divides one-half of a vehicle's width by the height of its center of gravity to come up with its rollover score. Automakers largely disliked that formula because it was based on a mathematical calculation, not crash simulations.

Automakers, nonetheless, are wary about the latest rollover test. They say it could misrepresent what happens in real-world accidents because rollover crashes can differ depending on several circumstances.

"It all depends on whether they can duplicate the test," says Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "It's very difficult to replicate the real-world conditions that affects a vehicle's propensity to roll over. There are two dozen factors."

Along with road conditions and vehicle design, experts say factors such as driver distraction and whether or not a vehicle has a stability control system can factor into a rollover.

"We hope that any test is repeatable," said GM spokesman Mike Morrissey. "There's an issue of variability in a driver-dependent test."

The dynamic rollover test will likely include procedures that are already commonly used in the auto industry, such as the fishhook maneuver and the J-turn, said David Champion, director of automobile testing for Consumer Reports. Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, has urged the agency to come up with a real-world test for more than a decade due to increasing concerns about rollover.

The fishhook maneuver uses an automated steering controller to steer the vehicle quickly to the right and then to the left. The test is done repeatedly at rising speeds until the vehicle tips.

The J-turn test uses a steering controller to turn the vehicle one way until it turns in the shape of a J. This also is done repeatedly at rising speeds until the vehicle tips.

In both tests a motorist drives the vehicle down a track and activates the steering controller to conduct the test.

According to 2001 data, an SUV occupant is three times more likely to die as a result of a rollover than an occupant in a car.

This week, the agency released rollover ratings for more than a dozen SUVs from the 2003 model year. None of the vehicles got four-star or five-star ratings, NHTSA's best rollover scores.

NHTSA spokesman Tim Hurd said the agency can't comment on the dynamic rollover test because it is being evaluated, but he said NHTSA is looking at various driving issues in developing it. The agency hasn't disclosed when the data will be available to the public, but it could be posted on NHTSA's Web site, www.nhtsa.dot.gov.

Joan Claybrook, president of consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said she supports NHTSA's upcoming test, but hopes that the agency combines the mathematical and real-world information to give consumers one rollover score.

If the agency uses two scores, the automakers "would use the number they like the best," she said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5537 Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/5537
"We will do what the court tells us to do, but we will appeal," Ford spokesman Kathleen Vokes said.

A judgment hearing is scheduled for the end of this month. Then, the company will have the option to file an appeal in the case, said Mikal Watts, the plaintiffs attorney.

Nearly two years ago, Mario Galvan Castro of San Benito broke his neck and was left paralyzed from a rollover accident in Dent County, Mo., after the roof of the cab collapsed on him. After a three-week civil trial, a Brownsville jury in the 197th state District Court concluded that Ford was 70 percent responsible for injuries Galvan received during the accident.

The jury determined the auto giant should pay the plaintiff $13 million for future and past damages and $5 million in punitive damages. The money would mainly cover the expenses to care for Galvan, who is now a quadriplegic, Watts said.

Galvan, now 22, declined to comment on the case.

"Its a tragic thing that didnt have to happen," Watts said.

On Aug. 20, 2001, Galvan was behind the wheel of a 1997 Ford F-150 pickup when he apparently missed a curve and veered off the road, hitting a culvert and rolling 1 1/2 times.

According to Galvans attorney, the Porter High School grad, who was wearing a seatbelt, suffered injuries as a result of the trucks roof crushing down. Two passengers, who were also wearing their seatbelts, apparently walked away from the accident without injury, he said.

"By the time it (the truck) stopped rolling, his neck was broken," said Watts, the lead trial attorney.

Vokes said alcohol played a part in the accident, but Galvans attorney said a Breathalyzer test taken two hours after the accident showed Galvans blood-alcohol level was below the Missouri legal limit at the time.

Watts expects the automotive giant will settle the case instead of filing an appeal.

"I anticipate well have some discussions in the case," Watts said Friday.

After the verdict, Galvans attorney recommended a full-scale recall of the PN96 model. Ford does not intend to recall the vehicle.

It would be up to the National Highway Traffic Safety Association to make such a recommendation, Vokes said.

"We have empathy with anyone who has an accident," she said. "Our empathy goes out to the family, but this is another tragic reminder that individuals should not drink and drive. These cases should be decided on evidence, not empathy]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4377 Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4377
The world's second-largest automaker is accused of hiding the evidence in a case involving the deaths of two passengers in one of the large vans when it flipped on a Kentucky highway in 1996. Thirteen people from Illinois were aboard.

Tuesday's ruling in Chicago on a motion to impose sanctions against Ford could have implications in other cases against the automaker involving E350 vans, which have come under government scrutiny because of numerous rollover accidents.

James Lowe of Cleveland, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs, said U.S. District Judge Robert Gettlemen ordered Ford to pay all costs in the plaintiffs' attempts to obtain the safety records. The amount of that fine was not specified.

More importantly, Lowe said, Gettlemen said he would inform the jury at trial that Ford's own records apparently showed the 15-passenger vans were not reasonably safe or stable.

The case, filed in 1998, is scheduled for trial Feb. 24. Ford has until Jan. 31 to turn over the safety testing records.

"It's minimum justice as far as I'm concerned, but I'm feeling very vindicated," Lowe said. "We had been yelling for a long time that Ford was not playing fair and now they're going to pay a price."

Ford's only immediate comment was what it has said all along about the van: The company remains confident that it's a very safe vehicle.

Ford has denied allegations it misled the court.

Despite the judge's decision to alert jurors of the hidden safety records, Ford still will be able to present evidence at the trial to defend the van's safety.

At issue in the motion for sanctions was whether Ford conducted certain safety testing on the vehicles several years ago, then hid the results from the court and plaintiffs' lawyers.

Ford says the testing in question was not done on a production version of the van but on "a rudimentary, cobbled model and was not representative of any production vehicle."

Company spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said Friday the plaintiffs were seeking results of testing that did not apply to the van involved in the 1996 accident.

Last year the government renewed a safety warning for 15-passenger vans, which often are used by churches, sports teams and other groups.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said the vans have a dramatically higher risk of rollovers when fully loaded and should be operated only by experienced drivers.

In November, the National Transportation Safety Board called on Ford and General Motors Corp. to improve the safety performance of their 15-passenger vans.

In letters to the automakers, the board urged them to test the use of electronic stability control systems to help drivers maintain better control of large vans.

Ford has said it's studying the NTSB recommendations.

The board also has asked NHTSA to expand its rollover ratings to include 15-passenger vans.

The government's current vehicle rollover ratings apply to passenger cars, trucks, minivans and sport utility vehicles.

About 500,000 15-passenger vans are in use on U.S. highways. According to NHTSA, 424 people have died in passenger van accidents in the United States since 1990. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4362 Sat, 18 Jan 2003 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4362
U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman in Chicago on Friday delayed a decision until hearings continue on Tuesday. James Lowe, an attorney seeking the sanctions against Ford, said the sanctions could vary from a fine to a default judgment on liability.

One of the lawsuits involves the deaths of two passengers in a Ford large van when it flipped on a Kentucky highway on July 5, 1996. The van was carrying a church group on its way back to Illinois after a trip to Washington, D.C.

Sheila Johnson, one of the plaintiffs, was severely injured in the crash and lives in a nursing home. Julia Whitley was ejected and killed. according to attorneys. Daniel Whitley, Julia's husband, is also a plaintiff.

Lowe said Ford denied that it had used a computer application, dubbed ADAMS, to determine whether the 15-passenger vans were subject to rollover. Lawyers, however, discovered that Ford used the computer test after a judge ordered that the company turn over all its documents involving the 15-passenger vans. Testing showed that the van's wheels lifted off the ground, indicating a rollover risk.

Ford also met with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in August 2001 and didn't disclose the testing results to the agency, Lowe said.

"I see it as a corporate scandal as with all the others we have uncovered," Lowe said. "Somebody has to catch them and somebody has to do something about it."

Ford denies that it misled the court.

"Ford did not conduct ADAMS testing or modeling on a current or previous E350 15-passenger van that was in production," the company said in a statement. "The ADAMS testing that was completed was done on a rudimentary, cobbled model and was not representative of any production vehicle."

Ford, which holds an 85 percent share of the 15-passenger van market with part of its Econoline Series, has said that it is exploring safety recommendations that the National Transportation Safety Board made in November, some of which are related to the vehicle's brakes.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3920 Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3920
Ohio joined the rest of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands in suing Ford over safety risks concerning tire failures with some Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT tires, which came standard on some Ford SUVs.

The states claimed the tires made the vehicles more likely to roll over. About $30 million from the settlement will go to a nationwide SUV safety campaign.

Ford did not admit wrongdoing, but did agree to be more accurate on the carrying capacity of SUVs and provide safety information on SUVs in both English and Spanish. Ford also agreed to abide by all state and federal laws governing SUV safety, including a federal regulation that requires manufacturers of SUVs with a wheelbase under 110 inches to alert purchasers that those vehicles have a higher possibility of rollover. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3921 Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3921
The claims against Ford stemmed largely from Firestone tire failures, many in rollover accidents involving the Explorer sport-utility vehicle. Ford denied any wrongdoing.
The settlement "resolves allegations of deceptive trade practices relating to the sales and advertising of Ford sport-utility vehicles," Iowa's attorney general, Tom Miller, said in a statement. However, the agreement does not affect private legal claims against Ford.

"The agreement marks the end to all government investigations relating to the tire recall in the United States. In February 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed its investigation of the Ford Explorer, concluding the Explorer handles like comparable SUVs before, during and after a tread separation," Ford said in a statement. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3922 Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3922
Cooper and the other attorneys general allege that Ford failed to warn drivers of the risk of tire failure on some Ford SUVs and used deceptive advertising to sell SUVs and tires. The states contend that Ford continued to equip its SUVs with Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT tires even after the company knew that the tires had an unacceptably high failure rate and often caused roll-over accidents.

Ford is also accused of running ads that exaggerate the safe loading capacity and maneuverability of its SUVs and the quality of aftermarket tires sold by its "Around the Wheel" program.

Ford denies the claims but has agreed to pay the states $51.5 million, $30 million of which will go to launch a nationwide consumer education campaign on SUV safety. The balance of the settlement will go to the 53 states and territories, including North Carolina, to cover investigation costs and fund consumer protection efforts.

Prior to the settlement announcement, Ford had already spent close to $2 billion to replace tires in SUVs across the U.S.

Under terms of the agreement, Ford is barred from misrepresenting the safety, handling and cargo capacity of its SUVs as well as the purpose of any recall or recommended inspection. Ford will no longer use the term "car-like" to describe SUV steering and handling in its advertisements and must have reliable scientific evidence to back up claims it makes about vehicle safety, performance or durability. Ford also agrees to give safety information to consumers who buy Ford SUVs and to provide information in Spanish upon request.

In addition, Ford must abide by all state and federal laws governing SUV safety, including a federal regulation that requires manufacturers to tell SUV buyers that vehicles with a wheelbase under 110 inches have a higher possibility of rollover than other vehicle types. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3966 Mon, 23 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3966
The money comes from a $51.5 million settlement with all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands involving alleged deceptive trade practices connected with the advertising and sales of Ford SUVs.

Mark Ohlemeier, a spokesman for Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall, said Monday that the settlement includes $30 million from Ford to create a nationwide public service consumer education campaign on SUV safety.

The lawsuit alleged that Ford failed to disclose a known safety risk concerning tire failures with certain Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT tires that came as standard equipment on some Ford SUVs.

It also alleged that Ford's advertising misled consumers about the safe use of Ford SUVs and that the company's advertising falsely implied that certain after-market tires sold through Ford's "Around the Wheel" program were the same tires as those that came equipped on Ford SUVs.

Ford denied any wrongdoing. Ford has spent about $2 billion to replace tires in the 53 jurisdictions. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3923 Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3923
The money will be shared among each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

Ford also will include a disclaimer in advertising that shows aggressive driving. It will say, "Professional driver. Closed course. Do not attempt."

Texas was one of the lead states in the case and will help oversee the development and implementation of the advertising campaign, said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

The state looks to gain $300,000 under the deal, which Abbott said sends "a clear message that we will continue to be a strong advocate for consumer safety and fair marketing practices."

The Florida attorney general's office has led the case and was preparing to issue a statement Friday morning. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller held a news conference in Des Moines to disclose details.

Ford vice president and general counsel Dennis Ross issued a statement Friday morning that said the states' concerns related to common SUV advertising practices across the industry. He said as a result of the agreement, Ford will lead the industry with new consumer information about SUVs.

"Our existing practices, combined with new industry-leading practices, will help ensure that our SUV advertising will never be misconstrued," the statement said.

The states' claims stem from thousands of rollover accidents involving the Ford Explorer and faulty Firestone tires.

Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. has recalled millions of ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires over the past two years because they are prone to losing their tread while the vehicle is speeding down the road. Most of the tires were sold as original equipment on the Explorer, the world's best-selling sport utility vehicle.

At least 271 U.S. traffic deaths have been linked to the failed tires.

Bridgestone/Firestone paid $41.5 million in a settlement reached last year to head off lawsuits by states over the defective tires.

As part of its settlement, Ford also agreed to share information with the federal government and competitors about its patented Belt-Minder technology, which reminds drivers to buckle up with five minutes of intermittent beeping and a flashing light on the instrument panel.

In a study of Belt-Minder, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that 76 percent of drivers in vehicles with the system wore a seat belt, compared with 71 percent in those without it. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3924 Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3924 Part of the settlement includes a campaign to promote SUV safety.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer announced the settlement Friday along with attorneys general from the 49 other states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. The settlement does not preclude suits being filed against Ford by individuals.

Explorer rollovers led to a government investigation of accidents involving Explorers equipped with Bridgestone/Firestone tires.

Bridgestone/Firestone paid $41.5 million in a settlement reached last year to head off lawsuits by states over defective tires. Also, the Explorer was redesigned last year.

The state attorneys general claimed that Ford's advertising failed to disclose rollover risks involved with driving SUVs. As part of Friday's settlement, Ford agreed to put warning disclaimers in its ads and to share information with the government on safety developments.

The jurisdictions will use $30 million from the settlement to mount a national public service campaign on SUV safety. Another $15.9 million will be split among the jurisdictions $300,000 and $5.6 million will be used to pay investigation costs.

Ford released a statement saying it "was pleased to work with the states" in the settlement, adding that "states' concerns related mostly to marketing practices with respect to advertising SUVs and tires, which are not unique to Ford."

Len Brewster, a Detroit-based auto analyst, said the settlement was "comparatively affordable for Ford, given the millions that have been spent in similar cases involving things like tobacco."

Shares in Ford closed at $9.79 Friday, up 1 cent, on the New York Stock Exchange.

Tom Dresslar, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office, noted that "the families whose lives were harmed still retain the ability to seek justice against Ford and get full compensation for the economic and non-economic damages that they suffered."

He said the states' legal action was intended to ensure that Ford takes adequate steps to promote SUV safety and is truthful in its advertising. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3925 Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3925
Such ads have traditionally featured drivers climbing into their sport-utility vehicles, going up mountains and screaming around corners. Very briefly, at the bottom of the screen, a notice in small type says the demonstration involved a professional driver and took place on a closed course.

Effective early next year, such ads either will stop or the disclaimers will become much more conspicuous under terms of a consent decree filed in King County Superior Court yesterday. Similar documents were filed in state courts throughout the country as the nation's attorneys general reached agreement with Ford, manufacturer of the popular Explorer SUVs linked to rollover accidents involving 271 deaths and 700 injuries worldwide.

The lion's share of the settlement $30 million is dedicated to a national consumer-education campaign to advise drivers about SUV driving and loading. The campaign will focus on all SUVs, not just those made by Ford.

Washington state, which Gregoire said took a lead role in the negotiations, will receive $900,000. Of that, $600,000 will reimburse the state for its attorney fees and costs; $100,000 will be used to continue the state's tire-safety public-education campaign; and $200,000 will go to the state general fund.

The settlement comes a year after the states reached a similar $51.5 million settlement with Bridgestone/Firestone, maker of tires installed as original equipment on the Ford Explorer. Through recalls, buyback programs and lawsuits, Bridgestone/Firestone and Ford are expected to pay out about $5 billion.

Yesterday, a complaint filed alongside the consent decree alleged Ford knew or should have known as early as 1990 that Explorers equipped with ATX and Wilderness AT tires were experiencing increased levels of tire failure due to tread separation. The failures were occurring primarily in warmer climates, and no deaths were linked to them in Washington, though 96 tire complaints were logged in the state during the '90s, Gregoire said.

Ford admitted no wrongdoing under the settlement. In a prepared statement, the company said its "advertising has always been held to the highest standards, particularly as it relates to showing the performance of our vehicles. Our existing practices, combined with new industry-leading practices, will help ensure that our SUV advertising will never be misconstrued."

Gregoire's complaint alleged that Ford has sold more than 5 million Explorers in the United States and that many are on the road and on the "secondary" market as used vehicles young drivers buy.

The company did a major remodel for the 2002 model year, when it widened the track and switched to independent rear suspension.

Gregoire and Assistant Attorney General Doug Walsh said the Ford deal puts the rest of the industry on notice that the states will be monitoring all SUV advertising strategies.

Ford is not the only company that has blurred the distinction between the handling characteristics of SUVs and cars, they said.

Walsh said the marketing and legal departments of other manufacturers will be "scrambling" to review the settlement documents, with an eye toward their own liability if they persist in misrepresenting the limits of SUVs.

In addition to the safety-campaign provisions, the settlement:

Prohibits Ford from making misrepresentations about SUV cargo capacity, safety and handling characteristics or the purpose of any recall or recommended inspection. This includes prohibiting Ford from using the term "carlike" in advertising with respect to the steering and handling of SUVs.

Requires the company to use reliable, scientific evidence to back up claims related to vehicle safety, performance or durability.

Requires the company to provide safety information about cargo loading and vehicle handling to each consumer who buys a Ford SUV. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3926 Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3926
Delaware Attorney General M. Jane Brady signed off on the agreement and it was approved by Superior Court Judge Joseph Slights in a brief proceeding Friday in Wilmington. The other 49 states, the District of Columbia and two territories also were to sign off on the agreement Friday. Some, however, will be doing so on Monday, according to Deputy Attorney General Ralph K. Durstein.

Delaware did not originally file suit against Ford, but agreed to join in the national settlement. Durstein said the settlement represented a victory for consumers.

"This makes it clear in the marketing, advertising and sales of products that there are standards that have to be upheld," he said.

The states alleged that Ford failed to disclose a known safety risk involving Firestone tires on some Ford SUVs manufactured between 1990 and 2001. Ford denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to reforms as part of the settlement.

The problems of rollover accidents involving some Ford SUVs equipped with Firestone tires received national attention and were the focus of congressional hearings. Ford blamed the accidents on faulty Firestone tires. Firestone blamed the accidents on badly designed Ford SUVs.

Ford has spent $2 billion to replace tires on some SUVs across the country, according to officials.

A similar national settlement between the states and Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., for $51.5 million, was reached last year.

Most of the Ford settlement, $30 million, will be used to fund a series of public service safety announcements, but each of the states received a cash payout.

All of the $300,000 earmarked for Delaware will go to the state's consumer protection fund, Durstein said. It will be used for investigations of consumer complaints.

Attorney John D. Balaguer, who represented Ford at the proceeding, declined to comment Friday.

The settlement between the states and Ford does not stop individuals from filing suit against Ford, according Lori Sitler, spokeswoman for the Delaware Attorney General's Office. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3927 Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3927
The state will receive $1.6 million and help oversee a $30 million nationwide safety campaign as part of the agreement announced Friday by the Florida Attorney General's Office.

Ford already has spent $2 billion to replace tires in Florida and other states after thousands of rollover accidents involving faulty Firestone tires and the Ford Explorer.

The company admitted no wrongdoing but touted the agreement as an amicable conclusion to government probes related to its massive tire recall.

The payments, to occur within weeks, will be shared among the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Much of Florida's share will be used to reimburse its legal costs.

Ford agreed to change its advertising to ensure that consumers get more reliable information about the handling, cargo capacity and safety of the company's SUVs.

For the first time, Ford also will provide Spanish-language owner guides for all its SUVs.

Friday's settlement resembles one 13 months ago, when Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. agreed to pay $41.5 million for its role in advertising and selling tires that had tire-separation problems.

The tire maker agreed to spend $5 million on a consumer education campaign and $10 million to reimburse attorney's fees for the states.

In the latest case, attorneys for the states alleged that Ford failed to tell SUV owners about the hazards of their vehicles, including the potential for tire failures with certain Firestone ATX and Wilderness AT tires.

In Florida, 40 deaths are linked to Ford SUV rollovers, and at least 271 deaths nationwide are tied to the failed tires.

Lawyers for the states said Ford continued to use the tires even after the company should have known that they had an unacceptably high failure rate and that using the tires made Ford's SUVs more likely to roll over. The states also alleged that the company exaggerated the safe loading capacity and maneuverability of the vehicles.

"So many things with these vehicles were advertised as car-like, but the truth is they are trucks and should be advertised as such," said Lisa Raleigh, Florida's senior assistant attorney general.

Ford's Web sitesaid the company "was pleased to work with the states to resolve any lingering concerns from the tire recall of August 2000."

Friday's settlement does notprevent individuals from filing their own lawsuits.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3936 Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3936
The company also agreed to disclose the risk of rollover.

The company and states reached the agreement Friday in a $51.5 million settlement that includes the creation of a $30 million nationwide public service consumer education campaign on SUV safety that will be used in all the states. The campaign will not focus on any individual make or model.

"This investigation was about fair advertising and consumer safety," said Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor in a news release. "Ford recognizes the value of consumer education and has now accepted the responsibility of raising consumer awareness about SUV safety."

The $300,000 will be used primarily to pay for Alabama's role in the investigation, officials said.

The carmaker will pay $300,000 each to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, said Pryor.

The claims stem from the states' investigation of rollover accidents involving faulty Firestone tires and the Ford Explorer, the world's best-selling SUV. Thousands of people were killed and injured when their Explorer rolled after tire failure.

The attorneys general began an investigation into Explorers about a year ago.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3937 Sat, 21 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3937 All fifty states and three territories sued Ford, accusing the company of failing to inform consumers of safety risks associated with equipping Ford Explorers with Bridgestone/Firestone tires.

According to the lawsuit, Ford exaggerated the Explorer's handling and loading capabilities and made false claims that the after-market tires were "specifically engineered" for Ford vehicles.

"Under the agreement, Ford will pay the states a total of $15.9 million," said Attorney General Drew Edmondson. "Oklahoma's share of the money will be used to investigate and prosecute violations of our state's consumer protection laws."

In addition to the $51.5 million cash settlement, Ford will be required to spend $30 million on public service announcements aimed at promoting sport utility vehicle tire safety. The company also will pay the states' legal costs of $5.6 million.

Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. signed a national settlement last year related to the advertising and sale of tires that had high rates of tread separation. Under that agreement Oklahoma received $530,000. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3928 Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3928
The money will be shared among each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Connecticut will get $900,000 in the settlement.

"Drivers deserve the truth in plain language about what can hurt them if they mishandle an SUV," Connecticut Attorney Richard Blumenthal said.

Ford also will include a disclaimer in advertising that shows aggressive driving. It will say, "Professional driver. Closed course. Do not attempt."

The Florida attorney general's office has led the case and was preparing to issue a statement Friday morning. Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller held a news conference in Des Moines to disclose details.

Ford vice president and general counsel Dennis Ross issued a statement Friday morning that said the states' concerns related to common SUV advertising practices across the industry. He said as a result of the agreement, Ford will lead the industry with new consumer information about SUVs.

"Our existing practices, combined with new industry-leading practices, will help ensure that our SUV advertising will never be misconstrued," the statement said.

The states' claims stem from thousands of rollover accidents involving the Ford Explorer and faulty Firestone tires.

Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. has recalled millions of ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires over the past two years because they are prone to losing their tread while the vehicle is speeding down the road. Most of the tires were sold as original equipment on the Explorer, the world's best-selling sport utility vehicle.

At least 271 U.S. traffic deaths have been linked to the failed tires.

Bridgestone/Firestone paid $41.5 million in a settlement reached last year to head off lawsuits by states over the defective tires.

As part of its settlement, Ford also agreed to share information with the federal government and competitors about its patented Belt-Minder technology, which reminds drivers to buckle up with five minutes of intermittent beeping and a flashing light on the instrument panel.

In a study of Belt-Minder, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that 76 percent of drivers in vehicles with the system wore a seat belt, compared with 71 percent in those without it.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3929 Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3929
On Friday, the Illinois Attorney General's office announced that it would receive a portion of a $51.5 million settlement with Ford after a nationwide lawsuit accused the company of misleading its customers.

The settlement closes an investigation of the safety of Ford Explorers and Mountaineers equipped with ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., according to a news release from the attorney general's office.

Illinois was one of eight states that launched an investigation in 2000 into claims that Ford violated consumer protection laws by failing to disclose the risk of rollovers on Ford SUVs equipped with Firestone tires sold as original equipment on the vehicles.

According to news reports, at least 271 traffic deaths have been linked to the tires, which are prone to losing their tread at high speeds.

Firestone has recalled millions of those tires since 2000 due to the safety risk, according to reports.

Under the agreement, Ford admits no wrongdoing, but agrees to provide safety information about cargo loading and vehicle handling to anyone who buys a Ford SUV.

The money will be shared among each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to the release. The bulk of the money $30 million will be used to mount a national public service campaign on SUV safety.

The settlement is subject to court approval, but court information was not immediately available Friday afternoon.

Firestone paid $41.5 million to the states in 2001 regarding similar allegations of consumer fraud against the tire company, the release stated.

"This investigation was about consumer safety and fair advertising," Illinois Attorney Gen. Jim Ryan said in the news release.

"We are pleased that Ford cooperated with the states and that it has now accepted the responsibility of raising consumer awareness about SUV safety," he said. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3931 Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3931
The states' attorneys general alleged that Ford continued to use Bridgestone/Firestone tires "even after the company knew the tires had an unacceptably high failure rate and that using the tires made Ford's sport utility vehicles (SUVs) more likely to roll over," according to a statement from Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar, who said that Ford has paid out more than $2 billion in tire replacement costs.

As part of the settlement, Ford will pay $30 million for a national public service consumer education campaign on SUV safety and $21.5 million to the states for consumer protection and education programs, of which Colorado's share is $300,000.

Colorado's money will pay for attorney fees and costs and consumer protection and education.

A year ago, the states settled a similar $51.5 million settlement with Bridgestone/Firestone.

"This case is about fair advertising and consumer safety. Ford recognizes the value of consumer education and has accepted the responsibility of raising consumer awareness about SUV safety. This settlement will provide excellent protections for consumers purchasing and driving SUVs in Colorado and across the country," Salazar said in a statement. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3932 Fri, 20 Dec 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/3932
The settlement is similar to a deal reached with state attorneys general last year by tire maker Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., the U.S. subsidiary of Japan's Bridgestone Corp., which recalled 6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires in 2000 because of sudden tread failure at highway speed.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced in February an investigation had determined the Explorer was no more susceptible to rollover than comparable mid-sized SUVs made by other companies.

States and the U.S. territories are expected to use part of the settlement to run public service announcements about vehicle safety.

"Ford was pleased to work with the states to resolve any lingering doubts from the tire recall, while taking actions to enhance consumer awareness of safety information and safe driving practices," Ford said in a release. "The states' concern related mostly to marketing practices with respect to SUVs and tires, which are not unique to Ford."

Ford also will share the patented seat belt technology of its Belt-Minder system with competitors and federal safety officials and change its ads showing SUVs climbing mountains or making aggressive maneuvers.

New commercials will have a disclaimer warning viewers the vehicle was driven by a professional driver on a closed course and advise motorists not to attempt high-risk maneuvers.

The settlement does not affect scores of individual personal injury or wrongful death suits filed against Ford. Both Ford and Firestone have settled hundreds of suits with survivors of rollover accidents or their families.

NHTSA has linked 271 deaths and more than 800 injuries to possibly defective Firestone tires, most installed as original equipment on Explorers.

Ford introduced an all-new, redesigned Explorer in 2001 and said it didn't notify consumers of the rollover problem because it was not aware the previous model was prone to tip because of its higher center of gravity.

The Explorer remains the world's best-selling sport-utility vehicle with nearly 400,000 sold in the United States in 2002.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/2686 Thu, 24 Oct 2002 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/2686
The justices decided without comment not to review an appeal from the automaker, which in court papers called the verdict the nation's largest personal injury award ever affirmed by an appeals court.

The case involved a crash of a 1978 Bronco near Ceres, about 80 miles south of Sacramento, in which three members of the Romo family were killed and two others injured.

The verdict was meant to punish Ford for what an appeals court found was "despicable conduct." The Romo family's attorney, Joe Carcione, said Ford knew the Bronco "would crush flat as a pancake in a rollover."

"The legal system works," Carcione said. "It's finding a way to punish conduct that is outrageous and is criminal, and the only way to punish outrageous and criminal conduct of a huge, monolithic rich corporation is you have to hit them in the wallet."

Ford attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., echoing business interests that had urged the state's high court to overturn the verdict, said the justices missed an opportunity to rein in runaway verdicts.

"This is an extreme and unconstitutional award," Boutrous said. "We plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn it."

The trial judge had ordered a new punitive damages trial, citing possible jury misconduct. But in June, the state Court of Appeal reinstated the verdict and said there was ample evidence of corporate wrongdoing regardless of allegations of jury misconduct.

"We think that it is obvious that putting on the market a motor vehicle with a known propensity to roll over and, while giving the vehicle the appearance of sturdiness, consciously deciding not to provide adequate crush protection to properly belted passengers constitutes despicable conduct," Justice Steven Vartabedian wrote for the appeals court, which ruled 3-0. "Such conduct could kill people."

The Bronco's roof was made partially of steel and fiberglass. As the vehicle rolled, the steel collapsed, killing Ramon Romo, the passenger in the front seat. The fiberglass also broke loose, striking and killing his wife, Salustia, and his child, Ramiro. All three were wearing seat belts. Two other children not wearing seat belts were thrown from the Bronco and injured.

In its appeal, Ford said one juror was influenced by a TV news show in which lawyers alleged the automaker would rather litigate cases than correct defects. Ford also charged that another juror, during deliberations, described to fellow panelists an "omen" in which she dreamed that her child, and fellow jurors' children, were killed by a Bronco.

The verdict could have a serious effect on Ford's bottom line. Chairman and chief executive William Clay Ford Jr. announced plans Monday to cut $1 billion in spending after reporting a third-quarter loss of $326 million. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/132 Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/132
But they say they feel justice has been done since Ford Motor Co. last week agreed to pay $1.5 million to settle a federal lawsuit that claimed an airbag deployed too late in the 1998 crash that killed the Des Plaines woman.

They also hope news of the settlement will send a message to auto makers and motorists that airbags can be dangerous, even deadly.

"I'm more satisfied with the justice because more people are going to know," daughter Anita Hensley-Martinez of South suburban Westmont said Tuesday.

Martinez said that since the crash killed her mother, she has been "terrified" of airbags in her own car.

"In our truck, I always turn off my airbag," Martinez said.

Martinez and her sister, Laurie Hensley-Hernandez of South suburban Bolingbrook spoke of their loss at a news conference Tuesday in the Chicago office of their attorney, Edmund Scanlan.

Evans, then a 48-year-old manager of a KFC restaurant in Mount Prospect, was leaving work on a rainy November 1998 night when she drove her 1998 Explorer into a light pole.

Computer data recorded in her truck's black box showed she was driving only 19 mph and the airbag took nearly twice the time considered safe to deploy.

Scanlan said the Cook County Medical Examiner's report indicated that Evans' head was close to the steering wheel when the airbag inflated - causing her head to snap back, breaking her neck.

Lawyers for Ford said Evans' death was caused by Klippel-Feil syndrome, a disorder Evans had that caused her vertebrae to fuse together. That meant she was at extreme risk of dying in any car accident, Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said.

"The co-worker she was driving home in the passenger seat wasn't even wearing a seat belt, and he came away with no injury," Vokes said. "Both airbags deployed at the same time, but Evans was just extremely vulnerable. It wouldn't matter what car she was driving."

Scanlan acknowledged that Evans had the medical condition but said his client would likely have survived such a crash if the airbag had deployed correctly.

Ford lawyer Mark Boyle said the company agreed to the settlement, reached two weeks before the trial was set to begin, because of the uncertainty of a jury trial and computer evidence.

Martinez and Hernandez said they feel robbed of time with their mother, who raised them single-handedly in Downers Grove until 1994 when she married and moved to Des Plaines.

"The money doesn't mean anything. The money can't bring my mother back," Martinez said.

"My mom could run circles around people. She was an awesome person," she said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4390 Wed, 30 Jan 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4390 information the company has claimed doesn't exist and fined the automaker for concealing evidence, a plaintiffs' attorney said.

The world's second-largest automaker is accused of hiding the evidence in a case involving the deaths of two passengers in one of the large vans when it flipped on a Kentucky highway in 1996. Thirteen people from Illinois were aboard.

Tuesday's ruling in Chicago on a motion to impose sanctions against Ford could have implications in other cases against the automaker involving E350 vans, which have come under government scrutiny because of numerous rollover accidents.

James Lowe of Cleveland, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs, said U.S. District Judge Robert Gettlemen ordered Ford to pay all costs in the plaintiffs' attempts to obtain the safety records. The amount of that fine was not specified.

More importantly, Lowe said, Gettlemen said he would inform the jury at trial that Ford's own records apparently showed the 15-passenger vans were not reasonably safe or stable.

The case, filed in 1998, is scheduled for trial Feb. 24. Ford has until Jan. 31 to turn over the safety testing records.

"It's minimum justice as far as I'm concerned, but I'm feeling very vindicated," Lowe said. "We had been yelling for a long time that Ford was not playing fair ... and now they're going to pay a price."

Ford's only immediate comment was what it has said all along about the van: The company remains confident that it's a very safe vehicle.

Ford has denied allegations it misled the court.

Despite the judge's decision to alert jurors of the hidden safety records, Ford still will be able to present evidence at the trial to defend the van's safety.

At issue in the motion for sanctions was whether Ford conducted certain safety testing on the vehicles several years ago, then hid the results from the court and plaintiffs' lawyers.

Ford says the testing in question was not done on a production version of the van but on "a rudimentary, cobbled model and was not representative of any production vehicle."

Company spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said Friday the plaintiffs were seeking results of testing that did not apply to the van involved in the 1996 accident.

Last year the government renewed a safety warning for 15passenger vans, which often are used by churches, sports teams and other groups.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has said the vans have a dramatically higher risk of rollovers when fully loaded and should be operated only by experienced drivers.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4166 Tue, 01 Jan 2002 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/4166
The two sides met until nearly midnight when Ruby Shinhoster finally agreed to the money the companies were offering. Her husband, Earl Shinhoster died on I-85 when the Ford Explorer he was riding in blew a tire, rolled over and slammed into a tree.

The family's attorneys said the wreck happened because Firestone's tire was defective and the SUV's design caused it to roll over easily. Ruby Shinhoster left quickly after the settlement was announced, but said she at first wanted the trial to go on so the companies would have to accept blame. Ford and Firestone's attorneys say they regret Shinhosters death but deny their products were to blame and they say the settlement does not indicate any wrongdoing on their part.

Two other victims also settled their cases against the companies, but neither side is allowed to say just how much money will change hands. The lawyers working for the woman hurt in the accident, Samimah Aziz are going out of thier way to make sure people know what they wanted to tell the jury; that Ford and Firestone were covering up defects and have been for some time now.

She can barely walk after two years of surgery and therapy, yet Samimah Aziz has big plans for life after court.

"I plan to write a book about this experience," she said. "It's an American phenomena, this introduction of SUVs and this whole phenomena of trucks and taking the roads with SUV's."

Aziz was thrown from the same Ford Explorer Earl Shinhoster died in and left with fractured hands, feet, and arms and long term disability. That's why she supports an ongoing attack on Ford and Firestone. "There isnt ever enough money to compensate for the loss of life," said Aziz.

The lawyers say there were several things Ford didn't want you or a jury to see, such as videotaped company road tests showing the Explorer's tendency to roll over, even with good tires. Firestone escapes with just slightly less culpability.

Aziz' Lawyer William Gill says the tiremaker covered up potentially life threatening defects. "Firestone had known for many years that it had a problem with many of its tires," he said.

Firestone Spokesman Dan MacDonald says neither company accepted guilt as part of the settlement. "We're just pleased we were able to get this thing resolved without having to go through a long trial," he said.

But Aziz and her lawyers say that admission isn't necessary. The court of public opinion and common sense will be enough.

"We don't have to say blame," Aziz explained. "I was in a Ford Explorer with Firestone tires and this is the result."

Aziz plans to start driving again now that the case is over. She says one thing is certain. When she buys a new car, it won't be an SUV.

We were unable to speak with Ford's representatives in the case, but they had repeatedly denied any responsibility for the accident. Firestone stuck to its claim that the tire that caused the rollover was seven years old, used, reclaimed from the dump and improperly resold to the man who owned the Ford Explorer.

There is some speculation tonight about the final amount of money given to the families. One attorney in Tuskeegee says it is a record amount for a personal injury case in Alabama. Neither side will confirm that. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/39 Fri, 21 Dec 2001 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/39
Chuck Burt, 26, of White Lake, Mich., was paralyzed on June 25, 2000 when a tire tread separation caused the vehicle to roll over on Interstate 96 in Livingston County, Mich., his attorney Bob Tyler said.

Burt was riding in the back seat with his daughter as his wife drove, Tyler said.

The case was scheduled to go to trial Jan. 7 in Livingston County Circuit Court, but Burt decided to settle with both companies, Tyler said.

``It becomes a client's decision. They have to look at what's being offered to them, what they can do with the remainder of their life, and make a practical choice,'' Tyler said.

``This is another example of the Firestone program to try to reach an appropriate settlement with injured parties whenever possible,'' said Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. spokeswoman, Christine Karbowiak.

The Nashville, Tenn.-based tire maker has settled close to 500 cases out of court so far, Karbowiak said.

Under pressure from the federal government, Bridgestone/Firestone agreed last year to recall 6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires.

Last May, the almost century-old relationship between Firestone and Ford was severed when the automaker began a program to buy back 13 million Firestone tires it believed would deteriorate quicker than competitors' tires.

In October, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration closed its investigation after Bridgestone/Firestone agreed to recall 3.5 million more Wilderness ATs.

At that time, NHTSA downplayed the role of the Explorer in accidents that killed at least 271 and injured at least 700. But a NHTSA official later said that the agency is still examining the evidence and will likely decide by year's end whether to begin a formal investigation into the Explorer.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/34 Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/34
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said there have been at least 338 claims of tread separation on the P235/70R16 size of the General Ameri 550 AS tire - the same problem that plagued some Firestone tire lines and led to last summer's massive recall.

The claims include seven crashes, two of them rollovers, that reportedly caused a total of 17 injuries. No deaths have been reported, the agency said.

NHTSA's action was triggered by information collected by congressional staffers investigating the safety of Firestone tires.

At a hearing last month, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin announced that some of the tire brands that Ford Motor Co. was using to replace Firestone tires had higher rates of claims for injury and property damage.

He would not name the tires until NHTSA had a chance to review the committee's analysis. NHTSA refused to identify the other 10 lines that it examined but decided not to investigate.

Tauzin, R-La., said in a statement that ``NHTSA is taking an important step today toward better safeguarding American drivers.''

The Ameri 550 tire is used as original equipment on Ford F150 pickups and was identified by Ford as a replacement for Firestone Wilderness AT tires on the Ranger and 1997 F-series trucks.

Continental Tire North America Inc., which manufactures the General tire brand and is a subsidiary of German automotive supplier Continental AG, did not immediately return calls for comment. But NHTSA said Continental has made several design and production changes to these tires since they were first made in April 1995.

NHTSA said the claims rates for tires made after July 1998 were extremely low, and there have been no injuries attributed to those tires. Ford officials did not immediately return calls for comment, but have said the company is using the newer tires as replacements on its vehicles.

``Nevertheless, to assure that relevant information is not missed, NHTSA's investigation will consider the safety performance of the entire population of these tires, rather than only those produced prior to those design changes,'' NHTSA said in a statement.

Tauzin spokesman Ken Johnson said while the General Ameri 550 that NHTSA is investigating had 124.4 tread separation claims per million tires produced, the same size Wilderness AT tire had 17.4 per million. He said none of the six tread separation claims on those tires resulted in injury.

``For many consumers, that can't be too comforting,'' he said.

``Clearly the next step is up to Ford,'' Johnson said. ``Company officials said repeatedly that they wanted hard evidence of a potential problem. Well, they've got it now.''

NHTSA is wrapping up its yearlong investigation into more than 55 million Firestone ATX, ATX II and Wilderness AT tires. Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. has already voluntarily recalled 6.5 million of the tires, but NHTSA said it will push for a larger recall.

Bridgestone/Firestone says the tires are safe and it will fight such an order in court.

Ford, concerned about the safety of the Wilderness AT tires, recalled all 13 million of the tires on its vehicles in May at a cost of $2.1 billion. Bridgestone/Firestone cut off its centurylong business partnership with Ford that same week.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/31 Thu, 19 Jul 2001 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/31
The unit of Bridgestone Corp. has defended the safety of the tires since Ford Motor Co. announced in May that it was replacing 13 million Wilderness AT tires on its vehicles, asserting it had serious doubts about their safety. The move led Firestone to sever its nearly 100-year-old relationship with Ford.

In a statement, Firestone said further action by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration involving the tires was unnecessary, adding that it would use "every available step" to prove that its tires are safe, including pursuing the issue in court.

Last August, Firestone announced a voluntary recall of 6.5 million 15-inch ATX, ATX II and same-sized Wilderness AT tires made at the company's Decatur, Illinois, plant.

Those tires, linked to 203 deaths and at least 700 injuries in crashes mainly in the south and southwest United States, were largely fitted as standard equipment on Ford's Explorer sport utility vehicles. Firestone has contended the Explorer has safety flaws of its own. Ford has vehemently denied those charges.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/33 Mon, 21 May 2001 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/33
Aug., 1999 - Ford offers customers in Saudi Arabia free replacements for tires in question.

Feb., 2000 - Ford offers free replacement tires for vehicles in Malaysia and Thailand.

May - Ford offers to replace tires for customers in Colombia, Ecuador and Venezuela.

May 2 - After receiving numerous inquiries and complaints from consumers in the U.S., the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) opens a preliminary probe of the alleged failure of ATX, ATX II and Wilderness tires made by Firestone.

May 8 - NHTSA asks Bridgestone/Firestone for information about the tires in question as part of its preliminary evaluation.

May 10 - NHTSA asks Ford for information about the tires and the use of the tires in the carmaker's product lines.

Aug. 1 - Two safety groups, Public Citizen and Strategic Safety, appeal to Ford to recall millions of sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks made over last decade, claiming the tire tread can peel off.

Aug. 3 - NHTSA says it is probing 21 deaths in crashes of pickup trucks and SUVs in which tire failure may have played a role.

Aug. 4 - Sears, Roebuck & Co., the No. 1 U.S. tire retailer, stops selling certain Firestone tires.

Aug. 7 - NHTSA says it is probing at least 46 deaths potentially related to failures of Firestone tires. Discount Tire Co. and Montgomery Ward also say they will suspend sale of Firestone tires until more information is made available.

Aug. 9 - Bridgestone announces the recall of 6.5 million ATX, ATX II and Wilderness tires of certain sizes produced by its Firestone unit and offers to replace them.

Aug. 15 - NHTSA raises to 62 from 46 the number of traffic deaths linked to Firestone tires and says it is looking into reports of 100 injuries, with almost all of those involving Ford Explorer SUVs.

Aug. 21 - Ford announces it will idle three truck assembly plants to free up tires for recall replacements. The automaker also begins prime-time television advertising featuring Chief Executive Jacques Nasser in an effort to repair its image, battered by the recall.

Aug. 22 - Bridgestone says it will fly tires from Japan to the U.S. to provide replacements for recalled tires.

Aug. 23 - Bridgestone says it will boost production to 450,000 tires annually at three Japanese plants to provide replacement tires for the recall.

Aug. 25 - Venezuelan consumer protection agency says it has evidence of deception by Ford and Bridgestone that cost lives in traffic accidents.

Aug. 28 - Bridgestone says it will boost production in Japan to 650,000 tires from 450,000 earlier for replacements.

Aug. 31 - NHTSA raises the number of deaths linked to Firestone tires to 88 from 62, and the number of injuries to 250 from 100. Venezuela's consumer protection agency recommends Bridgestone and Ford be prosecuted over tires linked to 46 deaths in Venezuela.

Sept. 1 - NHTSA warns motorists about an additional 1.4 million Firestone tires that may have even greater problems than the 6.5 million recalled. Firestone says it disagrees with the analysis and refuses to recall the tires.

Sept. 4 - Bridgestone/Firestone reaches agreement with union to settle labor dispute and avert a strike at nine U.S. plants. Bridgestone agrees to recall all 62,000 Wilderness AT Firestone tires in Venezuela.

Sept. 6 - Lawmakers criticize Ford and Firestone at separate House and Senate hearings. Firestone's chief executive apologies, while Ford says it will not rest until every faulty tire is replaced.

Sept 19 - Bridgestone says spiraling costs of tire recall to reach $400-500 million in the business year to next March, $50-$150 million more than originally projected.

Sept 19 - NHTSA raises the number of deaths linked to Firestone tires to 103 from 88, and the number of injuries to more than 400 from 250.

Sept 29 - U.S. highway safety investigators expand probe of Firestone tires to include the company's Steeltex line of light truck tires following 169 complaints related to Steeltex radials since the beginning of 1998, including two deaths.

Oct 5 - House Commerce Committee unanimously backs legislation aimed at strengthening highway safety in the wake of Firestone recall.

Oct 10 - Bridgestone/Firestone replaces Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Masatoshi Ono with John Lampe, who becomes first American to lead Bridgestone/Firestone since it was bought by Bridgestone in 1988.

Oct 17 - NHTSA raises number of deaths linked to Firestone tires to 119 and number of injuries to more than 500.

Oct 17 - Bridgestone/Firestone announces production cut at three U.S. plants and lays off 450 people at its Decatur, Illinois, facility. Firestone's total North American output to fall by 20 percent.

Oct 18 - Ford third-quarter operating earnings fall 16.3 percent to $994 million, hit by $500 million in costs related to Firestone recall.

Oct 20 - Bridgestone stock plunges 12.25 percent to year-low of 938 yen, down 60 percent since early August.

Oct 23 - Bridgestone says in Tokyo it found no major development or production problems at its U.S. Firestone unit, and that there was no one specific cause behind the tire problems.

Nov 17 - Bridgestone/Firestone says to cut tire production at two U.S. plants in January, resulting in temporary layoff of about 1,100 workers.

Dec 5 - Bridgestone President and Chief Executive Officer Yoichiro Kaizaki denies the U.S. unit was in danger of failing, and says tire maker would set aside $450 million this year to settle claims.

Dec 6 - NHTSA raises number of deaths linked to Firestone tires to 148.

Dec 14 - Bridgestone slashes profit estimate for this year by 80 percent and says to take a $750 million special loss this year to cover recall costs and potential damage claims.

Dec 27 - Ford settles at least eight lawsuits and says plans to settle many more cases stemming from accidents involving Ford Explorer vehicles and Firestone tires.

Jan 2, 2001 - Bridgestone/Firestone recalls another 8,000 tires with adhesion problems that were made in Mexico and equipped on General Motors Corp. SUVs.

Jan 4 - U.S. consumer group Public Citizen urges Bridgestone/Firestone to almost double its recall of 6.5 million tires, saying it was narrowly focused and hastily imposed.

Jan 11 - Bridgestone announces Kaizaki to resign to salvage the company's image.

Feb 6 - NHTSA raises to 174 the number of deaths connected to Firestone tires.

May 16 - New York Times reports Ford has concluded that there are problems with a number of Firestone tire models beyond those recalled, and is leaning toward demanding a wider recall. Firestone says its analysis of data does not support the allegations made by Ford.

May 20 - Ford says it is recalling 50,000 of its new 2002 Explorer sport utility vehicles because an assembly line problem may have cut tire treads. Ford says the problem is unrelated to the Firestone recall.

May 21 - Firestone says it is severing nearly a century of business ties with Ford and charges that the automaker is trying to deflect attention away from problems with the Explorer.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/ford_explorer_rollover Mon, 21 May 2001 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/ford_explorer_rollover Ford Explorer Rollover Blame is now being placed on Ford Motors for the unusually high amount of accidents involving the Ford Explorer. Based on a report by the Washington Post, citing analysis of national and Florida crash statistics, the Ford Explorer, even when fitted with tires other than Firestone, has a higher rate of tire-related accidents than other sport utility vehicles. According to the report Ford Explorers with Goodyear tires have been linked to 101 deaths nationwide.

The report states that in 25,000 fatal and nonfatal SUV accidents with 83 blown tires in Florida showed that tire blowouts in Goodyear equipped Explorers contributed to crashes at rates more than double those of other SUVs. This report demonstrates that no other make or model of SUV had a pattern of equipment failure that related as strongly to accidents as the Explorer's tire blowouts.

Using two different ways of measuring accident rates, the Explorer was either three or four times as likely as other SUVs to have a tire blowout contribute to an accident, the Post said. The report also stated that the Ford Explorer's higher fatality rate in blowout accidents appears to be related to rollovers.

In 5,870 single vehicle accidents in Florida, the Explorer was 13 percent more likely to roll than other compact SUVs. The Explorer was 53 percent more likely than other compact SUVs to roll over when an equipment failure such as faulty brakes, bald tires or blowouts caused an accident.

If you or a loved has been injured in a Ford Explorer rollover, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified personal injury attorney.]]>