http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/ford_f-150 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:55:38 -0800 pixel-app en http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11274 Fri, 03 Feb 2006 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11274
As the investigation into the cause of the fires became more focused, credible automotive experts as well as Ralph Nader expressed outrage that Ford was not addressing the issue in a responsible way even though a number of deaths had also been linked to the alleged problem.

Then, no longer able to avoid coming to grips with the fact that a massive number of its vehicles were potential fire traps, in a short letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(http://199.79.180.162/prepos/files/Artemis/Public/Recalls/2005/V/RCDNN-05V388-9228.PDF) (NHTSA), the Director of Ford Motor Company’s Automotive Safety Office finally announced a major recall involving some 3.8 million vehicles in September 2005.

As required by federal regulations (49 CFR Part 573) the letter was accompanied by a detailed report describing the history and scope of the problem.

Although the attached report includes the acknowledgement that there have been allegations that “three deaths” and other injuries have been linked to fires caused by the faulty switch, Ford strongly denies the connection. 

The recall actually expanded upon one already in operation and being monitored by the NHTSA (http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/results.cfm); however, it marked the first time that the giant automaker itself had openly acknowledged the seriousness and massive scope of the problem.

In August, Ralph Nader demanded the NHTSA alert vehicle owners to the potential fire hazard in numerous models of Ford and Lincoln SUVs and trucks. Nader wrote to Jeffrey Runge, head of NHTSA, insisting he issue a public warning about "life-threatening hazards" from a faulty cruise control switch in those vehicles.

At that point, Ford was in the process of recalling about 750,000 Ford F-150s, Expeditions, and Lincoln Navigators manufactured in 2000.

That recall was to replace cruise control switches, which may catch fire in the above mentioned vehicles. The NHTSA, however, was continuing its investigation to determine whether the same fire hazard exists in another 4 million Ford SUVs and light trucks.

The government investigation, which began in March, involves F-150 pickups manufactured from the 1995 to 1999 and 2001 to 2002 and Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigator models from 1997 to 1999 and 2001 to 2002.

The NHTSA had already received more than 550 complaints of engine fires as a result of the cruise control switch in the Ford models.
The most dramatic case wherein one of these faulty switches has been blamed for a serious fire is the one involving the Mohlis family. 

As we previously reported, after 911 was called, 74-year-old Darletta Mohlis died in an attempt to escape from her burning house. Her three children and husband, Earl, are suing the Ford Motor Company in a wrongful death action claiming a faulty cruise-control deactivation switch on Mr. Mohlis’s 1996 Ford F-150 pickup truck caused the fatal fire. 

In an ongoing investigation of fires linked to faulty cruise control shut off switches in Ford vehicles, CNN had already reported that despite the fact that Ford is aware of 16 million 1992 to 2003 vehicles at risk, only slightly over one million have been recalled.

The switch (manufactured for Ford by Texas Instruments) costs $20.57 and has already being linked to 559 fires reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Many of these fires have completely destroyed the vehicle. In this case, however, Mrs. Mohlis died when her entire house burned down after the family pickup truck caught fire while parked in the garage.

The fires are spontaneous and often occur when the ignition switch is off and the key removed. This is because Ford designed the switch to remain on or “hot” at all times. When a crack develops in the film (supplied by Dupont) separating the brake fluid from the electrical circuit, the leak will cause a fire.

Since May 1999, Ford had recalled a total of 1,071,000 vehicles in two separate recalls. CNN reported, however, that a document it obtained shows Ford was aware that it installed a total of 16 million of the switches between 1992 and 2003 in the following vehicles:

·    Mark VII/VIII from 1994-1998
·    Taurus/Sable and Taurus SHO 2.3 L 1993-1995
·    Econoline 1992-2003
·    F-Series 1993-2003
·    Windstar 1994-2003
·    Explorer without IVD 1995-2003
·    Explorer Sport/Sport Trac 2002-2003
·    Expedition 1997-2003
·    Ranger 1995-2003

In March 2005, the NHTSA opened an expanded investigation into more than 3.7 million of these vehicles. Ford, however, chose not to recall all of the vehicles arguing that the switch had performed well for years in most vehicle models.

As a result, Ford limited their recalls to those models “with an increasing fire rate report.” One recall notice was clear as to the risk, however.  Ford stopped using the switch last year in favor of a new design.

In the case involving the Mohlis family, inspections of the truck and fire scene were performed by two experts hired by the family’s attorney, officials from the NHTSA, and inspectors from Ford.

The family’s experts, an electrical engineer and a certified fire investigator, believe the switch caused the fire. Ford claims the fire started elsewhere and spread to the truck and the switch had nothing to do with the fire. The NHTSA has made no public statement as to its investigation or findings. Mr. Mohlis stated the truck had been parked in the garage and shut off for four days before the fire.

The mounting pressure from consumer advocates (like Nader), the steady stream of reports of fires linked to the very same switch, the ongoing NHTSA investigation, and consistently bad publicity related to this issue (like CNN’s investigative reports) undoubtedly played a role in Ford’s belated acknowledgment that there was, indeed, a serious problem and it was not going to go away.

The recall is the fourth largest for Ford and, according to NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson, the fifth largest auto recall in the nation's history behind: (1) 1996, Ford recalled 7.9 million vehicles for faulty ignitions; (2) 1971, GM recalled 6.7 million vehicles for engine failure; (3) 1981, GM recalled 5.8 million vehicles for a rear axle problem; and (4) 1972, Ford recalled 4.1 million vehicles for a shoulder-belt problem.
The NHTSA announcement described the remedy as follows:

“AS AN INTERIM REPAIR, OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. AS SOON AS REPLACEMENT PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED MID-OCTOBER 2005), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE INTERIM OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.”

Ford’s recall number is 05S28. Customers can also contact the NHTSA directly through its Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-3274236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or by going to http://www.safecaar.gov.

Now, ConsumerAffairs.Com is reporting that: “Ford Motor Co. says that fixing a potential fire hazard in the cruise control system of 3.8 million pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles will be delayed until February because replacement parts are not yet available.”

According to the report, Ford is advising owners of affected vehicles that they “can request that the cruise control system be disabled until the replacement parts are available.”

Previously, ford had assured the NHTSA that the replacement parts would be available in September.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11155 Mon, 09 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11155
IIHS found that only 6 of the seat and head restraint combinations in 44 current model SUVs are rated good for protection against whiplash injuries in rear-end crashes.

None of the seat and head restraint designs in 15 pickup truck models earns a good rating. Overall 4 out of 5 SUV and pickup seat and head restraints evaluated by IIHS rated marginal or poor for whiplash protection.

This is the first time the Institute has tested SUV and pickup seats using a dummy that can measure forces on the neck during a simulated rear-end crash.

"Manufacturer advertising often emphasizes the rugged image of SUVs and pickups. However, the institute's evaluations show seats and head restraints in many models wouldn't do a good job of protecting most people in a typical rear impact in everyday commuter traffic," said Adrian Lund, the group's president.

Six vehicles earned the highest rating in the IIHS analysis, including the Ford Freestyle, Honda Pilot, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Land Rover LR3, Subaru Forester, and Volvo XC90.

The Ford Explorer, Toyota 4Runner and Chevrolet TrailBlazer all rated poor, as did the Chevy Silverado pickup and some seats in the Ford F-150 and Dodge Dakota pickups.

Neck injuries are the most-common serious injuries reported in U.S. car crashes, accounting for 2 million insurance claims totaling at least $8.5 billion annually, the insurance group said.

"The key to reducing whiplash injury risk is to keep the head and torso moving together," Lund said. "To ensure they move together, a seat and head restraint have to work in concert to support an occupant's neck and head, accelerating them with the torso as the vehicle is driven forward. To accomplish this, the geometry of the head restraint has to be adequate, and so do the stiffness characteristics of the vehicle seat."

A head restraint should extend at least as high as the center of gravity of the head of the tallest expected occupant. A restraint also should be positioned close to the back of an occupant's head so it can contact the head and support it early in a rear-end crash.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10639 Thu, 08 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10639
As required by federal regulations (49 CFR Part 573) the letter was accompanied by a detailed report describing the history and scope of the problem.

Although the attached report includes the acknowledgement that there have been allegations that “three deaths” and other injuries have been linked to fires caused by the faulty switch, Ford strongly denies the connection. 

The recall actually expands upon one already in operation and being monitored by the NHTSA (http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/results.cfm); however, it marks the first time that the giant automaker itself has openly acknowledged the seriousness and massive scope of the problem.

Only last month, Ralph Nader demanded the NHTSA alert vehicle owners to the potential fire hazard in numerous models of Ford and Lincoln SUVs and trucks. Nader wrote to Jeffrey Runge, head of NHTSA, insisting he issue a public warning about "life-threatening hazards" from a faulty cruise control switch in those vehicles.

At that point, Ford was in the process of recalling about 750,000 Ford F-150s, Expeditions, and Lincoln Navigators manufactured in 2000.

That recall was to replace cruise control switches which may catch fire in the above mentioned vehicles. The NHTSA, however, was continuing its investigation to determine whether the same fire hazard exists in another 4 million Ford SUVs and light trucks.

The government investigation, which began in March, involves F-150 pickups manufactured from the 1995 to 1999 and 2001 to 2002 and Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigator models from 1997 to 1999 and 2001 to 2002.
The NHTSA has received more than 550 complaints of engine fires as a result of the cruise control switch in the Ford models.

The most dramatic case wherein one of these faulty switches has been blamed for a serious fire is the one involving the Mohlis family. 

As we previously reported, after 911 was called, 74-year-old Darletta Mohlis died in an attempt to escape from her burning house. Her three children and husband, Earl, are suing the Ford Motor Company in a wrongful death action claiming a faulty cruise-control deactivation switch on Mr. Mohlis’s 1996 Ford F-150 pickup truck caused the fatal fire. 

In its ongoing investigation of fires linked to faulty cruise control shut off switches in Ford vehicles, CNN has already reported that despite the fact that Ford is aware of 16 million 1992 to 2003 vehicles at risk, only slightly over one million have been recalled.

The switch (manufactured for Ford by Texas Instruments) costs $20.57 and has already being linked to 559 fires reported to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Many of these fires have completely destroyed the vehicle. In this case, however, Mrs. Mohlis died when her entire house burned down after the family pickup truck caught fire while parked in the garage.

The fires are spontaneous and often occur when the ignition switch is off and the key removed. This is because Ford designed the switch to remain on or “hot” at all times. When a crack develops in the film (supplied by Dupont) separating the brake fluid from the electrical circuit, the leak will cause a fire.

Since May 1999, Ford has recalled a total of 1,071,000 vehicles in two separate recalls. CNN reports, however, that a document it has obtained shows Ford is aware that it installed a total of 16 million of the switches between 1992 and 2003 in the following vehicles:

·    Mark VII/VIII from 1994-1998
·    Taurus/Sable and Taurus SHO 2.3 L 1993-1995
·    Econoline 1992-2003
·    F-Series 1993-2003
·    Windstar 1994-2003
·    Explorer without IVD 1995-2003
·    Explorer Sport/Sport Trac 2002-2003
·    Expedition 1997-2003
·    Ranger 1995-2003

In March 2005, the NHTSA opened an expanded investigation into more than 3.7 million of these vehicles. Ford, however, chose not to recall all of the vehicles arguing that the switch has performed well for years in most vehicle models.

As a result, Ford has limited their recalls to those models “with an increasing fire rate report.” A recent recall notice was clear as to the risk, however.  Ford stopped using the switch last year in favor of a new design.
In the case involving the Mohlis family, inspections of the truck and fire scene have been performed by two experts hired by the family’s attorney, officials from the NHTSA, and inspectors from Ford.

The family’s experts, an electrical engineer and a certified fire investigator, believe the switch caused the fire. Ford claims the fire started elsewhere and spread to the truck and the switch had nothing to do with the fire. The NHTSA has made no public statement as to its investigation or findings. Mr. Mohlis stated the truck had been parked in the garage and shut off for four days before the fire.

The mounting pressure from consumer advocates (like Nader), the steady stream of reports of fires linked to the very same switch, the ongoing NHTSA investigation, and consistently bad publicity related to this issue (like CNN’s investigative reports) probably played a role in Ford’s belated acknowledgment that there is, indeed, a serious problem and its not going to go away.

The recall is the fourth largest for Ford and, according to NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson, the fifth largest auto recall in the nation's history behind: (1)1996, Ford recalled 7.9 million vehicles for faulty ignitions; (2)1971, GM recalled 6.7 million vehicles for engine failure; (3)1981, GM recalled 5.8 million vehicles for a rear axle problem; and (4)1972, Ford recalled 4.1 million vehicles for a shoulder-belt problem.

The NHTSA announcement describes the remedy as follows:

“AS AN INTERIM REPAIR, OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN THEIR VEHICLES TO THEIR DEALERS TO HAVE THE SPEED CONTROL DEACTIVATION SWITCH DISCONNECTED. AS SOON AS REPLACEMENT PARTS ARE AVAILABLE (EXPECTED MID-OCTOBER 2005), OWNERS WILL BE INSTRUCTED TO RETURN TO THE DEALERS FOR INSTALLATION OF A FUSED WIRING HARNESS. THE INTERIM OWNER NOTIFICATION IS EXPECTED TO BEGIN DURING THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2005. OWNERS SHOULD CONTACT FORD AT 1-800-392-3673.”

Ford’s recall number is 05S28. Customers can also contact the NHTSA directly through its Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-3274236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or by going to http://www.safecaar.gov.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10638 Wed, 07 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10638
It is the fifth largest auto industry recall in U.S. history.

Ford said the recall of 1994-2002 model-year vehicles includes the company's hot-selling F-150 pickup truck, Ford Expedition, Lincoln Navigator and Ford Broncos. The company said it would start sending out recall notices to vehicle owners immediately.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the No. 2 U.S.-based automaker have been investigating complaints of engine fires linked to the switch.

NHTSA has received more than 550 complaints of engine fires from the cruise control switch. There have been allegations of three deaths in cases cited in news reports or lawsuits in Iowa, Georgia and Arkansas.

The affected vehicles include: 1994-2002 model F-150s, 1997-2002 Expeditions, 1998-2002 Navigators and 1994-1996 Broncos equipped with factory-installed speed control.

"We have a solution that fixes the problem and we're confident that this is going to be the right remedy," said Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10320 Wed, 27 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/10320
KIRO 7 Eyewitness News Consumer Investigator Wayne Havrelly says some of those fires burned right here in Western Washington.

I've met several people who experienced these fires.

They all say what happened to them doesn't seem real. Their SUVs were parked with the engines off, but for some reason, the vehicles were consumed by fire.

Chris Boyd feels fortunate his family is safe. His '98 Ford Expedition burst into flames in his driveway. It had been parked with the engine off for three hours.

"My horn started going off. I looked out the window and there was no fire, but by the time we got from the fourth floor down to the ground floor the car was engulfed in eight-foot flames," Boyd said.

The same thing happened to Valerie Mitchell when she parked her '98 Expedition outside a Kirkland grocery store.

"(I) went into the grocery store. I was in there about five minutes and I came out, and my truck was on fire," said Mitchell.

It turns out the feds are investigating over 520 complaints of Ford trucks and SUVs catching fire, possibly because of a faulty switch that shuts off the cruise control when you hit the brake pedal.

That switch has already led to a safety recall on 2000 model year Expeditions, F-150's and Lincoln Navigators.

The feds recently expanded the investigation to include some 3.7 million Ford trucks and SUVs, ranging in model years from 1995 to 2002.

Local fire department investigators couldn't determine what caused Boyd's and Mitchell's Ford trucks to burn.

However, since Chris Boyd's charred vehicle was still in his driveway, we hired an independent investigator who specializes in electrical fires to take a look.

"I see copper melting on this side down low, and I see aluminum damage to the front driver's wheel that I don't see on the passenger side," said Doug Gottshall, a fire investigator.

Gottshall said the fire appears to have started somewhere below the steering column, which is exactly where the cruise control switch in question is located.

The actual switch was incinerated in the fire, so in this case, it's tough to pinpoint how those flames first erupted.

If it wasn't for a quick response from the fire dept. Boyd says his home would have gone up in flames.

A home in Iowa home burned when a 1996 F-150 truck caught fire in the garage. A woman died and her family has filed this wrongful death lawsuit against Ford.

There's already a flurry of lawsuits against Ford on this issue, including one right here in Washington.

Ford officials tell me they're "working closely with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration but it's been an extremely complex and challenging investigation.

They point out what you've already seen: These fires have a tendency to burn evidence.

"I feel like I want to tell everybody to go out there and get your Fords checked out, especially if it's a model like this," said Chris Boyd.

In 2004, Ford started using a newly-designed cruise control deactivation switch. We paid $23 for it at a local Ford dealership.

Mechanics tell me many Ford truck owners are not waiting for possible future recalls. They're already buying the switches and replacing them on their own.
]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9504 Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9504
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it would examine Ford F-150 pickups from the 1995-1999 and 2001-2002 model years, and Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators from the 1997-1999 and 2001-2002 model years.

Agency officials said they have received 218 complaints of engine fires from the cruise control switch in those models. No injuries or fatalities have been reported.

The investigation of the popular vehicles does not include the 2000 model years of the trucks and SUVs, which was covered by recall in January of nearly 800,000 vehicles.

Ford said the cruise control switch could short circuit and cause an engine compartment fire when the vehicle is parked or driven, even if cruise control is not in use.

"We'll continue to cooperate with the agency until the matter is closed," Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said.

"Fires happen for a variety of reasons ranging from faulty repair, improper modification to the vehicle with aftermarket parts and wiring, prior accident damage, and even arson," Kinley said. "This is why each complaint or allegation must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis."

The F-Series pickups long have been one of Ford's best-selling vehicles. The company said in late December it had set an industry record for full-size pickup sales in 2004, selling more than 912,000 F-Series pickups. It eclipsed Ford's own mark of 911,597 pickups sold in 2001.

The auto safety agency often conducts investigations after getting complaints from consumers or spotting trends in warranty claims. Investigations can lead to vehicle recalls.

The recall in January affected about 792,000 Ford F-150 pickups, Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators from the 2000 model year. The 2001 F-Series Supercrew trucks also were affected.

The company began notifying owners in February of the recall. Dealers were instructed to deactivate the cruise control switch for free.

Kinley said replacement parts for the defect are expected to become available in mid- to late-April.

The federal investigation got under way in November after regulators got 36 reports of fires. All the incidents occurred when the vehicle was parked and the ignition was turned off. No injuries were reported. The agency has received 193 complaints about the 2000 model year vehicles.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9389 Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9389
There are no pictures of Ramon Gonzalezs deceased mother, 11- year-old Sandys first communion or of 10-year-old Monas birthday parties.

There are no family portraits hanging on the wall or framed snapshots arranged on the kitchen counter.

The family lost most of its photos and most of its 6,800-square-foot dream home when a fire thought to have started in their parked 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis spread from the garage across the roof.

Its a nightmare that the Gonzalez family shares with dozens of other Ford Motor Company vehicle owners who blame a speed control deactivation switch for spontaneously igniting. The couple is now suing Ford and the company that designed the switch to regain the damages they lost in the fire.

A blaring alarm roused Ramon and Sandra Gonzalez from their sleep around 12:30 a.m. on Oct. 29, 2002.

"We were confused," Sandra said. "We didnt know what it was."

They opened their bedroom door, and the steel door that closed off the garage, to find the garage full of fire. Four fire departments responded to douse the fire, but could not save the home, which Ramons construction company Nomar built.

Insurance adjusters later determined the family cars speed control deactivation switch was to blame the same switch lawyers say was involved in the companys January recall of 800,000 F-series vehicles. The familys car had not been running since about 7:30 p.m., when Sandra returned from buying groceries. The family received $208,000 about $170,000 less than the appraisal.

They spent more than a year trying to rebuild the home, which still lacks carpeting and fixtures.

The girls still sleep downstairs in what will become the family room as their father works to rebuild the upstairs. The case is set for trial in August in 139th state District Judge Juan Partidas court.

The Gonzalez story might not be an unfortunate freak occurrence.

One of their lawyers, represents five other Hidalgo County families suing Ford. His law firm is handling dozens of cases in which vehicles fires started from the speed control deactivation switch.

When a driver turns on the cruise control device that keeps the vehicle at a constant speed, the switch acts as a safety net, stopping the automobile if the brakes dont.

The switch remains electrically wired, even when the vehicle is off. Located in the engine next to flammable fluids, the switch can short circuit and catch the fluid on fire, the attorney said.

In January, Ford voluntarily issued a safety recall on 2000 model year Ford F-150s, Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators, and 2001 F-Series Supercrew trucks affecting nearly 800,000 vehicles. In 1999, the company recalled almost 300,000 vehicles for a faulty speed control deactivation switch, including the 1992 and 1993 Crown Victoria, Lincoln Town Cars and Mercury Grand Marquis.

The Rio Grande Valley is a popular market for the companys vehicles. In 2004, Ford dealerships in the Rio Grande Valley sold 9,013 of the companys vehicles, said Chuck Cueva, general sales manager for Boggus Ford in McAllen.

The attorney said there are an estimated 17 million Ford vehicles manufactured before 2003 that have the same switch. He gave The Monitor a spreadsheet obtained from Ford indicating 18 vehicle makes contain the switch including some that have not been recalled.

Ford spokeswoman Kristen Kinley said the switches in those vehicles are not the same as those included in the companys two recalls.

The company is working with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to investigate Ford vehicle fires allegedly caused by the deactivation switches, she said.

NHTSA opened an investigation the on 2000 F-series in November 2004, which is still on-going, despite the companys voluntary recall of those vehicles.

"We take any allegation of fire seriously. We have to look too at (each allegation) on a case-by-case basis," Kinley said. The investigations are sometimes difficult because the company can not always obtain access to the vehicle, she said.

She acknowledged that the switches might have been the origin of the fires in some cases, but said at this point in the investigation, the company has not found fires occurring anywhere near the same amount as in the recalled models.

"If we do see a similar pattern we will certainly take action if we draw a conclusions there is a link to the speed control deactivation," she said.

However, Kinley said in some of the companys investigations into fires started in vehicles not included in recalls, the fires that were thought to have started in the cruise control deactivation switch actually were ignited by other causes, such as arson or faulty repairs.

For example, Kinley said in one case Jolly represents, the companys investigation found that a fire in a 1998 F-150 was caused by improperly installed wiring.

The plantiffs lawyer disputes the companys investigation findings and said the case is set for trial in April.

Regardless whether Ford decides to issue further recalls, life at the Gonzalez home is on hold as they await the outcome of their trial to continue rebuilding what theyve lost.

In the meantime, the only moving object housed in their rebuilt garage is a seldom-used treadmill.

"We dont park our car in the garage anymore," Sandra said.]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9248 Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0800 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/9248
The recall affects approximately 792,000 Ford F-150 pickups, Ford Expeditions and Lincoln Navigators from the 2000 model year. Also affected are 2001 F-Series Supercrew trucks that were made at the same time.

Ford will notify owners of the recall in February, and dealers will deactivate the cruise control switch for free. Once the company has an adequate supply of replacement switches, it will send another letter notifying owners that they can get their switches replaced.

Ford said cruise control will be disabled once the switch is deactivated.

"We recognize this may be an inconvenience, but we believe this preventive action is in the best interest of our customers' safety," the company said.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration opened an investigation into the defect in November after receiving 36 reports of fires. All of the incidents occurred when the vehicle was parked and the ignition was turned off. No injuries were reported.


Ford said it worked closely with NHTSA throughout the investigation. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8639 Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8639
Noyes pulled his Ford F-150 SuperCab pickup left to pass. But an oncoming car was approaching fast.

He cut back sharply to the right. The pickups wheels skidded into a low guardrail. Then, the 4,600-pound truck flipped on its side, and rolled over several times before coming to rest in a shallow culvert on the edge of a cornfield.

And when a Lancaster County sheriffs deputy got to the accident scene at 7:06 p.m. last July 11, Noyes was dead in the drivers seat, his lap-and-shoulder belt buckled and the roof of the F-150s cab crumpled down over his head.

It was a split-second traffic maneuver that turned disastrous, one of nearly 7,000 deaths and serious injuries linked each year to crushed vehicle roofs.

But Noyes death is also a chilling example of how seat-belted motorists are killed or injured when their vehicles roofs crush around them.

An average of 3,700 deaths and serious injuries occur annually in rollover accidents in which the victims are belted and the roof is crushed, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

No subset of rollover statistics is under greater scrutiny by NHTSA, which is expected this year to propose a tougher new roof-strength standard to replace the current rule enacted back in 1971.

The biggest increase in rollover deaths is coming from belted occupants, said Sean Kane of the research firm Strategic Safety. It is the key correlation between roof-crush and injury severity.

For more than 30 years, Detroits Big Three automakers have maintained that crushed roofs do not cause fatal or catastrophic injuries, but simply reflect the violent circumstances of certain rollover accidents.

But that explanation provides little solace to the Noyes family.

Accidents can happen, but Ray didnt have to die, said his widow, Sally Noyes.

Ray Noyes, 65, was an American success story an Eagle Scout, a U.S. Navy chief petty officer, nuclear-plant engineer, youth wrestling coach, husband, father and grandfather.

He died on a rural road hed traveled countless times, a ruler-straight stretch of two-lane blacktop cutting through the farms and pastures of southeastern Nebraska.

But it could have been any rollover anywhere: a momentary loss of control, a vehicle upended, a roof crushed and a life lost.

Ray Noyes had more than 200,000 miles on his old-model Toyota pickup when he finally decided to buy a new truck.

And like any project he took on, Noyes analyzed it in detail.

Ray was an engineer, a nuclear engineer, said his stepson Mitch Krenk. He researched everything to death.

Born in 1937 in the tiny Nebraska town of Imperial, Noyes was a self-made man with a tireless work ethic. He joined the Navy at age 19, spent 10 years on active duty, and returned to earn degrees in mechanical and nuclear engineering.

A stocky, crew-cut former wrestler, Noyes had a lifelong love of machinery. On our first date, he took me to Brownville (Neb.) to see the big hole in the ground for the Cooper nuclear plant, Sally Noyes said.

Ray was a hardware man, said Larry Harrold, his longtime supervisor at the Energy Northwest public utility in Richland, Wash. He had a nose for staying on top of problems and coming up with solutions.

Methodical and meticulous, Noyes poured over product specifications of pickup trucks in the spring of 2000. For an engineer whose favorite book was Why Materials Fail, selecting a new truck was no small deal.

Wed stop at a store and hed be down on his knees looking at tires, said his son Chuck Noyes. He just really thought things through.

Noyes settled on a bright red, 2000 Ford F-Series SuperCab with leather captain chairs, 17-inch cast-aluminum wheels, and a special towing package. When he retired from Energy Northwest, Noyes packed up his Ford and moved his family back to their roots in Nebraska.

But he was never far from a toolbox, tinkering in the garage and building a home office exactly like the chiefs quarters on a naval warship. Mostly, Noyes enjoyed the fruits of retirement spending time with old pals, hunting at his cabin in Wyoming, and cheering on his grandsons at sporting events.

It wasnt hard to pick his booming baritone out of a crowd at a high-school basketball game.

Every time my son made a basket, Ray would jump up and yell, All right! Krenk said. I finally told him he didnt have to cheer during warm-ups.

Red lights flashing

On Friday nights, things get lively at the Veterans Of Foreign Wars Post 4959 in Crete, Neb. While the vets kick back and swap stories, their wives cook up a spread of ribs and side dishes for supper.

Ray and Sally Noyes came early for Grill Menu night at the VFW last July 11, bringing along Sallys 90-year-old mother, Alice Weiss. After they ate, Sally headed off to a meeting for her 50th class reunion of Crete High School.

Noyes took his mother-in-law home, then started east on Highway 33 for the 20-minute trip back to Lincoln.

The weather was clear and warm. The speed limit was 55 mph. Noyes was halfway home when it happened.

He saw the car stopped in front of him and reacted. If he had lost control just up the road, his F-150 might never have rolled.

Except he hit the only guardrail for miles. The F-150s right wheels dug into the rails three metal cables, and the truck rolled over onto its right side, according to the police report.

The passenger side took the first blow, but the roof on the drivers side bore the brunt of the crash.

On impact, the roof over Noyes crushed down at least 10 inches, nearly to the back of his seat. The roof on the other side hardly was deformed.

Lancaster County Sheriffs Deputy Derek Horalek witnessed the rollover from down the road, and was on the scene almost instantly. Noyes, he said in his accident report, was wearing his lap-and-shoulder belt.

Noyes was taken to Bryan Lincoln General Hospital West, where he was pronounced dead on arrival. The certificate of death lists cardiac arrest and trauma from MVA (motor vehicle accident) as the causes.

Later that evening, Sally Noyes rode down Highway 33 with her sister, and passed the flashing red lights of police cars on the shoulder of the road.

I said, There must have been an accident, she said. It looks like a red pickup. It never dawned on us.

She arrived home to find the front door locked and the house dark. When she got inside, the phone was ringing. There had been, she was told, an accident on Highway 33.

Crash-test findings

When he saw his fathers F-150 at the storage yard, Chuck Noyes was shocked at the damage on the drivers side roof.

The roof looked like a crinkled aluminum can, just crushed on one side, Chuck Noyes said. It was like a karate chop just chopped it. The passenger door opened up fine.

Auto-safety experts agree that no two rollover accidents are identical, and that trucks roll differently than passenger cars.

But certain characteristics appear frequently in rollover conditions.

The leading side of the roll very often suffers less damage than the trailing side of the vehicle. If a car or truck rolls to the right, the left side of the roof crushes with more force.

And the trailing side where Ray Noyes sat is where the worst injuries occur.

In a 1994 study of 58 rollover accidents, former General Motors Corp. engineer Don Friedman cataloged where injuries occurred in relation to the leading side of the vehicle.

Nearly 85 percent of the deaths and severe injuries happened on the trailing side, and the majority of those victims wore seat belts.

Friedman recently expanded the study to 800 rollovers from 1992 to 1998, and found that 90 percent of deaths and injuries occurred on the trailing side.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216, which is under review by NHTSA, only requires automakers to test one side of the roof.

Pressure equal to 1.5-times the vehicles weight is applied gradually. If the roof crushes five inches or less into the passenger compartment, it passes 216.

Safety advocates contend that testing one side, particularly with the windshield intact, fails to show how the second side will perform in a rollover.

The roof has got to be able to withstand what is a predictable and serious problem with these vehicles, said R. David Pittle, senior vice president of technical policy and advocacy for Consumers Union.

Detroits Big Three automakers for decades have argued that crushed roofs have nothing to do with serious injuries in rollovers. Instead, they say injuries are caused by occupants diving into the roof before it collapses.

Ford Motor Co. has declined interview requests from The News on the topic of roof strength. But Fords position on the issue is clearly spelled out in government documents.

In a 2001 filing with NHTSA, Ford said crash data suggesting the presence of roof deformation and occupant injury does not establish a causal connection between the two.

Moreover, Ford rejects the notion that rule 216 needs updating after more than 30 years.

There is no added benefit to occupant safety with increased overall roof strength, the company said.

But safety experts say the growing percentage of belted rollover victims seems linked to the strength of the roof or lack of it.

Ten years ago, 16 percent of the people injured in rollovers were belted, said Ken Digges, a professor with the National Crash Analysis Center at George Washington University.

Now NHTSA estimates that belted occupants represent 55 percent of deaths and injuries in roof-crush, rollover cases.

As the percentage of belted occupants rises, said Digges, roof crush becomes more important.

The metal A-pillars that frame the windshield are critical to the strength of a vehicles roof. On Noyes truck, the A-pillar on the left side was nearly flattened. The roof itself came down directly over the drivers seat.

Noyes was a formidable man, a 6-foot-2, former University of Nebraska heavyweight wrestler in robust good health. His lap-and-shoulder belt held him in his seat right in the path of the crushed metal roof.

The greater the roof crush, the higher the likelihood of head injuries, Digges said.

We have studied two levels of roof intrusion ... five inches and 10 inches, he said. We found that the higher level had more frequent head impacts.

Family takes action

Did the roof of his F-150 kill Ray Noyes?

There was massive blunt head trauma, which can cause brain-stem separation, said Timothy Eves, a lawyer for the Noyes family.

A wrongful-death lawsuit against Ford will be filed within weeks, Eves said. Sally Noyes struggled with her decision to sue, but felt a lawsuit would help expose the problem of crushed roofs

You have to get their attention and their attention is lawsuits, she said. Im thinking of other people. How many more will this happen to?

The family cant accept that a hard-core engineer bought a brand-new, top-of-the-line truck that couldnt protect him in a rollover.

How often did he buy a new vehicle? Only twice in a lifetime, said his stepdaughter Carrie Vitullo. It makes you mad. I think about it every time I see a Ford truck on the highway.

Noyes chose the Ford F-150 only after looking at every comparable pickup on the market.

Ray thought he was buying the best, toughest truck out there, Krenk said. Most people buy a full-size pickup because its tough. You know, its Ford tough.

After the accident, Krenk and Chuck Noyes went to the scene and picked Noyes tools out of the high grass. His two sisters, Barbara and Josephine, found his billfold. When they came back, they were shaking, Krenk said.

At his funeral, a video tribute was shown to a soundtrack of his favorite singer, Willie Nelson. There was Ray hunting in the mountains, celebrating with friends and family, posing proudly in his Navy uniform.

Each year, an average of 253,000 vehicles roll over in the U.S. More than 26,000 people are killed or seriously injured. In 6,900 cases, there was roof-crush present in the vehicle. And in 3,700 instances, the victims were belted.

Ray Noyes was one of them. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8640 Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8640
One case, however, stands out from the rest.

In December 2002, a Duval County, Texas, jury found that a crushed roof caused the side doors of a 2000-model SuperCab to burst open, ejecting Paul Alaniz and Laura Benavides to their deaths from the rolling pickup.

The verdict is believed to be the first time that a jury linked roof deformation to occupant ejection in a rollover accident.

Detroits Big Three automakers have long maintained that ejection is an entirely separate issue from the growing debate over federal standards governing roof strength.

But in Benavides v. Ford, the jury ruled that a crushed roof forced open the drivers door and the rear-hinged passenger door on the same side.

It was clearly a survivable accident if the doors had stayed closed, said the attorney for the Alaniz family.

Ford declined interview requests. In court, the automakers lawyers argued that the driver, Paul Alaniz, was solely at fault because he consumed alcohol on the evening of the accident, then lost control of his F-150 on a two-lane highway about 75 miles southwest of Corpus Christi.

The jury didnt agree, and awarded the Alaniz and Benavides families a combined $225 million one of the biggest automotive product-liability judgments on record.

Ford chose not to appeal the case and, instead, negotiated a confidential settlement, Wigington said.

A critical piece of evidence introduced at trial was a four-minute video of an F-150 SuperCab ejected off a moving dolly at about 45 miles per hour.

Ford commissioned an outside firm to do the test, primarily to show the jury how severe the accident was that killed Alaniz and Benavides.

Instead, the plaintiffs attorneys offered the video into evidence.

In the dolly-rollover test, the SuperCabs doors popped open on the drivers side, and test dummies were partially ejected from the vehicle.

Because of its barn-door style center-opening doors, the SuperCab has no B-pillars supporting the roof in the center of the truck.

Door latches failed

At the Benavides trial, former Ford engineer John Stilson, testified that latches fastening the front and rear drivers side doors failed because the roof caved in.

On the second roll, the drivers door latch failed because of the manner in which the roof crushed, said Stilson, testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Each year, more than 26,000 people are killed or seriously injured in rollover accidents, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nearly 7,000 deaths and serious injuries involve accidents where the vehicle roof crushed.

NHTSA only considers crushed roofs a factor in rollovers accidents where the occupants arent ejected. Safety experts, however, say deformed roofs do play a role in rollover ejections.

The roof-crush mode influences not only roof deformation, it can influence the risk of ejection, said Ken Digges of the National Crash Analysis Center at George Washington University, which is conducting an extensive roof crush study for NHTSA.

Crush-related ejections are usually tied to windshields or windows breaking in a rollover, with occupants ejected out the opening, said former General Motors Corp. engineer Donald Friedman, a frequent plaintiffs witness in roof crush lawsuits.

High rollover rate faulted

Critics claim the Ford F-150 SuperCab appears to have an abnormally high rate of ejections in rollovers. (The lawsuits against the SuperCab predate Fords redesign of its F-Series lineup for the 2004 model year.)

A total of 134 people were fatally ejected from F-Series SuperCabs from 1998 to 2001, according to a Ford internal document introduced at the Benavides trial.

The CrewCab version of the F-Series, which has four conventional doors with front hinges, accounted for 71 fatal ejections during the same period.

Even if an occupant is not ejected, the lack of B-pillars in the SuperCab weakens the overall roof structure, said the plaintiffs attorney.

Everyone, including everyone at Ford, knows the roof structure on these trucks simply will not protect people in rollover accidents, Watts said after a Texas jury awarded $18 million to Mario Castro, who was paralyzed in a SuperCab rollover.

In the Benavides trial, Ford lawyer Rosewell Page III said the SuperCabs roof exceeded Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216 by 43 percent. The vehicle was reasonably safe, he said.

But the circumstances of the accident convinced the jury otherwise.

On the evening of July 20, 2001, Paul Alaniz, 35, drove to a club in Kingsville, Texas, with three friends: Laura Benavides, 20; Juan Flores, 26; and Eluterio Elizondo, 24.

Alaniz, a physical-education teacher and youth football coach, drank at least two beers during the night out, according to trial testimony. His blood-alcohol level was 0.04 percent, half of the legal limit in Texas.

On the return trip, Alaniz drove with Benavides seated behind him. Flores and Elizondo were in the front and rear seats on the passenger side.

About 2:30 a.m., Alaniz lost control of the F-150. The truck tipped on the passenger side, and rolled three times off State Highway 2285, according to court records.

The roof on the drivers side the trailing side in the rollover was crushed severely. Both doors on the drivers side came open. Alaniz and Benavides were ejected an estimated 100 feet into a field of sagebrush and cactus.

Seat belts not used

But the doors on the passenger side stayed closed. Both Flores and Elizondo stayed in the vehicle and were uninjured.

None of the four were wearing seat belts.

The two on the side where the roof crushed and the doors popped open, they died, said Tony Alaniz, Pauls younger brother. The two on the right side where the doors stayed closed, they lived.

Page, Fords lawyer, blamed Paul Alaniz for the wreck.

If Mr. Alaniz had not lost control of this vehicle, there would be no accident and there would be no death, Page said.

The wreck, he said, was a violent accident.

Accidents happen every day, Page said in court. People die on the highway.

Tony Alaniz said his older brother was hardly a reckless driver.

He never had a speeding ticket in his life, never had a single citation for anything, he said. He didnt fall asleep. He went off the road, overcorrected, and the truck rolled over.

He wears a gold chain that he took off his brothers body at the accident scene nearly three years ago. Last month, Tony Alaniz visited the site, marked by two white, wooden crosses on the roadside.

Its just something thats so hard to accept, he said. You know, I had that same truck. Paul liked it so much he bought one just like it.

He sold his SuperCab after the accident, and now drives a four-door sedan. ]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8733 Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/8733
In 40 mph tests, the institute characterized the safety performance of the Ford F-150 and Dodge Ram as poor. In the case of the F-150, the institute said it's about as "bad as it gets."

A Ford F-150 pickup after a crash test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The best-selling pickup received the worst safety rating by the group.

Two other large pickups tested by the instituted fared much better.

The Toyota Tundra got a good overall rating, along with a good rating for five of six sub-categories. It received a marginal rating only for the chance of a injury to a driver's right foot.

The GMC Sierra 1500 and its twin Chevrolet Silverado 1500 received a marginal rating overall, with a good rating for its prevention of different types of injuries, but poor ratings for the cab's structural integrity as well as how well the airbag, seat belts and other restraints restricted movement by a crash dummy during the test.

Ford said other test results have shown the F-150 to be "outstanding," with a high level of safety. The F-150 has been the nation's best-selling pickup for the past 19 years.

Still, the institute's rating comes at a bad time, as the world's No. 2 automaker fights charges by tiremaker Bridgestone/Firestone that it is ignoring safety problems in the design of its best-selling Explorer sport/utility vehicle. More than 170 deaths have been tied to rollover accidents involving Firestone-brand tires on Ford vehicles, primarily the Explorer. While Ford has insisted the problem is the design of the tire, Bridgestone/Firestone officials insist that the design of the Explorer played a role in the accidents.

DaimlerChrysler, maker of the Dodge Ram, said no single test reflects a vehicle's "real-world safety."

But the institute's evaluation was harsh. The F-150 "exhibited major collapse of the occupant compartment in the offset test," said Brian O'Neill, the institute president. "As a result of this collapse, the dummy's movement wasn't well controlled. High-injury measures were recorded on the dummy's head and neck. The airbag deployed late in the crash, and this also contributed to the high injury measures."

"This was a very poor performer," O'Neill said.

The institute is a private organization funded by auto insurers. The institute's crash-worthiness evaluations consist of three performance measurements: occupant compartment intrusion, injury measurements of a dummy in the driver seat, and analysis of how well the vehicle restraint system controlled dummy movement.

Institute used higher-speed crash test

The institute has been testing vehicles in 40 mph offset crashes to complement the governments 35 mph full-width crash tests since 1995.

In the frontal crash test, the Tundra's occupant compartment had very little intrusion, and its doors still worked afterward. Engineers take eight measurements of intrusion around the dummy and two additional measurements of shifts of the inside compartment. The Tundra's measurements were solid. The crumple zone and safety cage all held up well.

"A key aspect of protecting people in crashes is keeping the space around the occupants intact," O'Neill said. "Then the safety belts and airbags can prevent significant injuries, even in very serious crashes. This is what happened in the Tundra, but not in the F-150."

James Vondale, director of Fords' automotive safety office, called the frontal offset test "an extremely severe high-speed test that does not often occur in real-world situations."

"That said, we are certainly examining the results of the test to see if any structural changes can be made without compromising the already high level of safety of the vehicle," Vondale added.

In its statement, Ford said government data show the F-series pickup's performance to be "outstanding" in real-world crashes and added that the pickup has performed well in crash tests by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

NHTSA's crash tests gave the 2000 F-150 four stars out of a possible five for protecting driver and passenger in a frontal crash, and the top five-star rating for a side impact.

The 2001 F-150 has not been tested by NHTSA for a frontal crash but the side impact once again got a five-star rating, while the 2001 F-150 extended cab pickup got a four-star rating for protecting the driver in a frontal crash, a five-star rating for protecting the front-seat passenger in a frontal crash, and a five star ratings for protecting both front and rear seat passengers in a side crash.

The Dodge Ram had problems similar to the F-150 in the institute's test. It also received a poor rating. The dummy had significant movement in the offset crash and the airbag deployed late.

In a statement, DaimlerChrysler said it recognizes the importance of providing consumers with crash-test information, but doesn't think the tests adequately describe the safety of the Ram.

"Our first priority is to engineer vehicles that perform safely in the real world, as well as to meet all standards established by the federal government," the statement read. "Our second is to do well in consumer rating tests. However, no single test can measure a vehicle's overall safety performance, and they don't necessarily reflect a vehicle's real-world safety."

The 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 pickup got a five star rating from NHTSA for protecting the driver and front-seat passenger in a frontal impact, although no side impact crash test has been conducted.

Relatively low injury measurements in the Chevrolet Silverado earned the truck a marginal rating. There was concern with the intrusion to the occupant compartment and dummy movement in the offset test.

]]> http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/ford_f-150 Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:00:00 -0700 http://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/ford_f-150 Ford F-150 The Ford F-150 pickup truck was given the lowest rating in crash tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The tests project a vehicle into a barrier at 40 mph. Unlike crash tests performed by the Federal government, the Institutes test only involves 40% of the front of the vehicle.

As a result, vehicles in the offset test crash into the barrier just to the left of the hood ornament. Offset tests are useful in determining the structural strength of a vehicle. Brian O’Neil, President of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said “the F-150 exhibited major collapse of the occupant compartment in the offset test.” This results in a collapse and the test dummy’s movement was not well controlled.

The dummy's head and neck suffered high injury measures on its head and neck. Late airbag deployment during the crash also caused the high injury measures." Mr. O'Neill also stated that if the simulated crash of the F-150 been real, it would have probably resulted in a fatality. "This is as bad as it gets in terms of crash performance," O'Neill commented. When asked what he (Mr. O’Neil) would do if he owned a Ford F-150 O'Neill replied, "I'd get rid of it, I wouldn't put my family, in a vehicle like this."

If you or a loved have been injured in a Ford F-150, please fill out the form at the right for a free case evaluation by a qualified personal injury attorney.]]>