Ford Sued for 02 Sport Trac Overturning

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
R

Ron Dacher

Active Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
106
Reaction score
2
Location
Glendale, CA
A lawsuit is underway in Los Angeles against Ford because of a 2002 Sport Trac overturning, resulitng in a paralyis of an 11 year old passenger. The lawyer is claiming that an electroinc stability control feature along with a lower center of gravity would have prevented the rollover. Ford, obviously, is saying otherwise. Sorry to hear about the little girl, but people need to be aware of the limitations of the vehicles that they are driving. You can't make a sudden move on a soft, dirt shoulder and expect the car to react in a safe manner.



I was going to work on changing the rear and front swaybars during the summer. I think I start working on them sooner.
 
Did a 180 and went off-road with the '04 ST with stock everything. Was going about 35mph, hit black ice then dry pavement and offroad. Never flipped.



TJR
 
It says all over the Trac the potential exists. On the sun visor, in the manual and I recall receiving a separate supplemental packet that had it in it as well.



It is sad someone was injured, but I doubt it had to do with the fault of Ford in this case...



I will agree that if there were an electronic stability control feature along with a lower center of gravity it would have helped, but the fact that so few have rolled by the standards of other vehicles, it is on the driver or the situation they were in.



 
I did a j-turn (not totally on purpose) on dry pavement lowered, with wide tires, and an EE bar, and slid out on ice and nosed into a snow bank in stock configuration. Never rolled it, but my dad slid through an ice patch doing about 45 and rolled it into a gully on the stock tires and rims. While he lived, whoever would've in the passenger seat might not be loving life as much. There's alot of variables that affect the outcome.
 
How many cars/trucks by any manufacturer had an electronic stability control feature available in '02?



As much as it is a shame that anyone gets hurt in an accident, it really irks me to hear of cases where people try to skate out of the own responsibility (irresponsibility?) by looking for someone else with deep pockets to pay their own bills.

 
Shoot, I've thrown the ST through 180 degrees of motion on purpose by forcing gear shifts and using the e-brake, and my st hasn't flipped.



Slid out in the rain when I had my LTS tires with over 100,000 miles on em all the time.





Electronic Control will not save you from the forces of nature--I went through a curve in light rain in a 2002 Odyssey with ETC, and was forced by a moronic driver to tap the brake, which led to doing a 180 and sliding backwards down the opposite lane that I started in for a bit, until I could slide off into the dirt shoulder.



If ETC won't stop a slide under NORMAL driving scenarios, I doubt ESC could prevent a rollover in an abnormal scenario.



Also, suing for a lower center of gravity should be thrown out of court. You can't change the vehicle's COG without changing its dimensions. That's like suing someone for being too tall. So many scum lawyers--making a buck is good, but this ambulance-chase-inspiring avarice needs to go.
 
this ambulance-chase-inspiring avarice needs to go.
Click to expand...

I heavily agree with you KL.



It really is a pity that they are wasting all this money on legal expenses (and IMO destined to fail!) when there is a child who will need as much financial help as she can get in the years to come...



Did someone say misplaced priorities??
 
The article states...



"According to their court papers, Alicia Cambron, then 46, was driving her Sport Trac on 50th Street East near Avenue P about 5p.m. on Feb. 23, 2006, when she had to swerve to the right to avoid a head-on collision with a vehicle that had crossed the center line.

When the woman began turning the SUV back to the left, it overturned on a dirt shoulder.

Her then-11-year-old daughter, who was strapped into the right rear passenger seat, suffered spine damage and paralysis when the roof crushed onto her neck."
Click to expand...



As I read this, the driver apparently over corrected. It appears from the description that the right side tires were apparently off the road and left ones were on the road. Depending on the dropoff there, the ST was probably not level and no stability control can account for a tire sliding sideways in the dirt or gravel. Once that tire catches on something sliding sideways, gravity takes over.



I would never wish injury on a child for anyone, but this was an "accident". The vehicle manufacturer is not to blame. If you want to sue, go after the driver of the car that was in your lane for causing you to swerve in the first place. Just my $.02
 
...and I'm going to speculate that she swerved back left almost immediately after swerving right, so the momentum of the car still had the weight of the body heavily on the right, which was amplified by the height of the dropoff. That's a big no-no in large vehicle driving, even if the ground was consistent and level. A sort of poorly done scandinavian flick.



I find it suspicious that the family isn't going after the other driver, who is supposed to have swerved into their lane. Sounds sketchy to me. If someone swerved into my line, endangering me, I'd be quite perturbed with 'em.



If someone got hurt because of their actions, I'd be angry.



...and if someone I knew got injured due to my poor reaction to their stupidity, I'd be very pissed off, and since people tend to blame others for their failings, I'd be inclined to be even MORE pissed.



Point being that I'd be hauling their sorry behind to the courtroom, not Ford.



Was there really another driver? I have to ask.



So when are all the other vehicle makers going to be sued for their SUVs? The flagrant BS that lawyer is spouting (rather uninspired BS imo) could be said of all companies....and the article concludes with a report that an independent test driver confirmed that ESC would NOT have saved the girl, so why is this even up for jury decision?



I can understand how avarice forces lawyers to become lower than low, but judges don't get anything out of cases, which is supposed to allow them to calmly judge and in such keep crap like this out of court. Unless they get kickbacks or something, why would they let something like this in?
 
My boss sat on a jury for almost a month in a case against Ford where a family was suing after their Mercury Mountaineer rolled on I40 killing one. They were suing for 10's of millions. Their argument was that Ford had the technology to make the SUV safer because they included it in the Volvo's. The jury basically said, if you wanted the safety features of a Volvo, then that's what you should have bought. The family got nothing.



While I feel for the family of this little girl, I hope that Ford has a jury with common sense and won't pay out millions to this family.
 
"The lawyer is claiming that an electroinc stability control feature along with a lower center of gravity would have prevented the rollover"



That's ripe...If I was a foot taller I'd be an NBA superstar



Two things the lawyer won't say:

1. His client is an idiot driver!

2. Even if offered, his client would not have BOUGHT the ESC for his Trac.



It's sad that a child was permanently injured out of the neglect of the driver.

It's unfortunate that a Jury will probably award to the family out of sympathy.

Remember these are 12 people to stupid to get out of jury duty!



If all the frivolous lawsuits when lost were met with the plaintiff having to pay the defendants legal fees, and their lawyer be responsible for 30% of that debt, these lawsuits would stop!







 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lawyers being responsible for debts would lead to them taking on less cases though, and charging higher fees for all services. In some cases, lawyers might go to more extreme measures to ensure their victory. Bribing a jury might be far cheaper than paying 30% of the legal fees.



Legitimate cases might not be presented in court because lawyers fear that they might loose :(



If judges were rational and impartial, as their positions are supposed to require, these lawsuits would be DOA. We need some judge reform, as lawyers as a body will always succumb to avarice, and your 30% plan to curb that will leave citizens with actual real problems out on the curb, a scenario which goes against what the justice system here is supposed to stand for.



I wouldn't say that people are too stupid to get out of jury duty..I know for a fact that it is on my father's bucket list. I don't know why, but it is, and he's never gotten to do it, so believe it or not, there actually are people who want to be on a jury.



 
believe it or not, there actually are people who want to be on a jury.
Click to expand...



:eek:fftopic::eek:fftopic::eek:fftopic::eek:fftopic::eek:fftopic:



I know you don't get to pick what you are deliberating on, but I've always wanted to be in a jury for a crazy and intense murder trial. There was a very high profile case in London over the last little where 8 Toronto Bandido bikers were murdered by a group of Bandidos from Winnipeg. All the killings took place in London Ontario, so the trial was also held here. Reporters were covering the case live via Twitter (one of the only times I've ever even gone to www.twitter.com) transcribing exactly what the lawyers and witnesses were saying. I found it incredibly interesting and I was glued to the trial until the very last day.



I can't help but think of Tina Fey's character in 30 Rock. She'd get out of jury duty by donning a Princess Leia costume and convincing those selecting the jury that she actually thought she was from Alderon and part of the rebel alliance. It worked like a charm in her home town, but needless to say, it didn't work in NYC.



:back2topic::back2topic::back2topic:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wait, I thought wanting to be on a Canadian murder trial jury was like wanting to go to Mars--it's a pipe dream, cause Canada is crime free.



"Wait, Canada has criminals? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?!!"



Being on a jury does have some sort of appeal, but maybe that's because public education showed me 12 Angry Men multiple times at a young age...
 
Not all trials are won by sympathy. I was just on a jury last month for a nursing home negligence case. While we all felt bad about the woman losing her foot, it wasn't the nursing home's fault. She had preexisting conditions and her daughter went out of town for a week the day the lady fell in her home and broke her leg.
 
First off very sad for the poor little girl that was injured in this accident. However why go after Ford when it was another driver coming at her that was the root cause? My guess is Ford has the deeper pockets? Lawyers and folks that expect a vehicle to do everything to save a life need to be on mass transit, IMO. If COG was to high they should have bought a Vette or ??? Consumer choice had as much to do with it as the oncoming driver and courts have more realistic cases to spend the time on, I am sure.

Again just my opinion.
 

Latest posts

Top