From the Galveston County Daily News: A woman is awarded a $16.7M verdict for killing her son in a car accident.
- Speeding
- Foggy Conditions
- No Seatbelt
Yep, definitely Ford’s fault.
Denver attorney Tim O’Neill, representing Ford, had told jurors that Reding had been driving too fast, particularly for the foggy conditions present the night of the crash. He also said the boy not wearing a seat belt played heavily into his tragic fate.
“Nothing about that vehicle caused that accident,� he said in his opening statement last week. “It was avoidable. It was preventable.�
During the trial, evidence showed that Reding most likely was driving at 37 mph when she veered right, turning the steering wheel 42 degrees.
“If you designed a vehicle that at 37 mph and 42 degrees rolls over, it’s a defective vehicle,� Buzbee said in closing arguments.
The verdict, which Ford attorneys said they would appeal Wednesday, is the first of its kind in Texas and the third nationwide.
9 responses so far ↓
1 Nick // Dec 20, 2005 at 9:29 am
Yea best way to get off the hook by blamming some one else for your actions can you say WTF why the hell would they have accept this law suit why didnt the fine her and put her in jail i mean WTF
2 rednip // Dec 29, 2005 at 9:10 am
“F”ound
“O”n
“R”oad
“D”ead
Weren’t they talking about the vehicle?
3 Christopher H. // Jan 6, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Can’t the mother be charged with neglect for knowingly operating her her vehicle while a passenger was not wearing a seatbelt?
I guess we know exactly how much her son meant to her. ($16.7M)
4 mitchell d. // Apr 13, 2006 at 12:06 pm
as a mechanic i have seen defective vehicles in my time while working on them. i have also know the simple
fact that it is not the car it is the driver and the mistakes that one make while doing so. the mother
should have been found guilty of neglegance because of no seatbelt on the passenger
5 justin // May 6, 2006 at 9:22 pm
F-Failure
O-on
R-race
D-day
stupid fords
6 Tony Buzbee // Dec 24, 2006 at 7:02 pm
it’s called, Ford not accepting responsibility for its vehicle, and hiring attorneys who can’t hold a candle to one who knows how to try a case.
7 runnner4ever // Jan 8, 2007 at 2:34 pm
This is ridiculous. If I want a car that has the best roll rating, then it is my job to find it. In our free market, money rules. If I offer to pay $25 to a company just for a few details like this, then companies will keep doing the research. If I don’t know the roll-ability of my vehicle, then it is my job to drive slower. The blame FORD is akin to making suv’s and truck’s illegal. If FORD is liable because they knew it, then we are all in violation as well because Consumer Reports has been telling us this for at least the past 25 years that I have been old enough to remember. And if indeed this is “wrong” for a vehicle to exist that can roll over, then we all should have to drive ferrari’s since they are really low to the ground. And we shouldn’t have any more skiing either because it takes trucks and suv’s to get there. And no more camping unless there is a level, paved road to the campsite. Do you not see the rediculousness of this? Companies build what we want. If we started caring, they wouldn’t be able to sell high-rolling cars. So if we don’t care enough to buy them, why should they care enough to try and make us? Free market works. Stupidity doesn’t.
8 Rachel Adelson // Sep 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm
This woman has a perfect base for accusation — if she lived in an altenate dimension where Dr. Seuss was king of the universe and little green men walked around in suits all day.
9 Clemente Nalls // Feb 1, 2011 at 11:49 am
Well I definitely enjoyed studying it. This article offered by you is very practical for accurate planning.
Leave a Comment