Bottom line… the kid rolled that Explorer. I drive SUVs, I know what it takes to roll them. He rolled it, end of story. **** happens, and **** aint worth $15million. Trialobserver could have been there, maybe not. He could be just another bull**** scam artist that litters the internet every day, don’t know. And I’m just here on a free moment, so that’s as much as I will think about Trialobserver. It’s not worth anything more than just that.

Thank God for a mouse wheel, my finger got a work out scrolling past that thing.

(& No, I don’t work for or with anyone in the legal profession. I was in the courtroom as a close friend of the deceased.)

I sat through the entire 8 days of the trial & I can tell you the short paragraph everyone has been responding is grossly misleading. That info came from an AP writer who admittedly took all of his so called “facts” from the closing arguments by the plaintiffs & defense attorneys. These are obviously biased statements being made to sway the jury & not reflective of the facts revealed during the 8 days of the trial. The evidence presented during trial gave the jury & will give you, a completely different understanding of the actual facts of the case.

For example, everyone has 3 basic assumptions about the case that were proved factually wrong during the trial. the 3 basic assumptions are 1. the trip speed of the vehicle was 67mph. 2. The the vehicle rolled passing another car in the curve. 3. The legal speed limit in the curve was 30mph. All 3 assumptions were proved patently false at trial… but since Ford’s attorneys didn’t have any better case to make in closing arguements they regurgitated the same bad logic they used in opening statements. The jury saw through it & judged for the plaintiffs.

To help you understand what the jury heard and acted on, let me at least address those 3 bad assumptions:

1st, The actual trip speed of the Moody vehicle was 40-42mph… does that change anyone’s comments? This “actual” trip speed was acknowledged openly by both plaintiffs & defenses experts. Ford expert even admited the trip speed may even had been lower.

So if the actual trip speed was 40-42mph, why are stories reporting 67mph as the speed at the time of the accident. As I mentioned, the reporter got his notes from closing arguements. Ford knew it had no solid defense so they had to “create” a defense by distorting facts & pulling unrelated facts into the equation with the sole purpose of confusing the jury. (A common tactic if you follow Ford’s defense cases of rollover accidents.)

The 67mph figure was used by an accident reconstructionist who estimated a “possible” speed of the moody vehicle, at a place before the accident, & before the curve, on Delaware not 121st Street. The reconstructionist admitted that projected speeds that far away from the actual point of the accident were not extremely accurate & that the moody vehicle could have just as likely been going 57mph.

The legal speed of this entire stretch of road is 50mph, from Delaware, through the curve & on to 121st Street. This is a rural road paralleling a river, with little cross traffic. So most cars travel it at near 60mph down this stretch most of the time.

The passenger in the Moody vehicle told police at the scene that he believed their speed to be between 55-60mph, totally consistent with the reconstructionists explaination that he could have reasonably been going 57mph at this point.

Keep in mind, we are not even close to the point of the accident yet, which occurs past the far end of a long sweeping curve, but in Ford’s desperation, they latched on to the 67mph # & interjected as often as humanly possible in the trial, as if it had something to do withn the speed at the point of the accident. It did not.

Ford implied not only that the Moody vehicle was going 67mph down Delaware, but also into the curve, that they
claimed had a legal limit of 30mph, putting the Moody vehicle at 37mph over the limit. Lies. More desperation on Ford’s part, attempting to fabricate evidence to build a case. The best witness for the Moody vehicle speed entering the curve was the driver in vehicle immediately in front of the Moody vehicle. She said the Moody explorer was directly behind her in the curve, positioning for the pass. She stated she knew her speed going into the curve was 50mph & slowing. The Moody vehicle stayed behind her car through the curve putting his speed at 50mph & slowing…, not 67mph as again misstated by Ford!

The legally enforceable limit on the curve is 50mph. So at this point, the moody vehicle is at or below the posted limit (lie #2 exposed by Ford’s imaginative legal team.

Ford further states that the “real” speed limit on the curve is 30mph because of an advisory siggn posted on the curve. (Lie #3 about to be exposed). When city engineers looked at the safe speeds for this stretch of rural river road, they determined the entire stretch down the North-South Delaware Avenue, through the sweeping cuve as the road bends left, or to the East to accommodate a bend in the Arkansas river, & then on to the connecting road 121st Street running East-West to be 50mph.

Many, many years ago, when this entire stretch was really rural farmland, night time drivers, not anticipating a 90 degree bend in the road, and with limited distance vision, often found themselves missing the turn & running off into a farmers field. An inconvenience for both the farmer & for the unsuspecting drivers who found themselves unexpectedly stuck in the mud.

So the city put uop a series of reflective arrows & an advisory speed sign of 30mph to help those night drivers keep on the road. The Moody accident happened midday, at 2:50pm.

The legal curve limit is 50mph & the Moody vehicle was going 50mph & slowing through the curve

Quite a different picture than the Ford attempt to sway the jury & public opinion into believing he was recklessly going 37mph over the legal, limit, huh? You’ve got to give Ford credit. They ARE masters of misdirection.)

Are you tired of reading yet? I know I’m tired of typing, but I have to finish what I started. Next big lie: Ford states the moody vehicle passed the other car in a no passing Zone in the middle of the curve. The facts of the case was that the Tulsa police department had an accident reconstruction team on the scene the day of the accident and used direct witness testimony & detailed physical evidence at the scene to determine that the Moody vehicle had completely passed through the entire length of this broad sweeping curve and had entered on 121st Street, a flat, straight unobstructed stretch of road before initiating his passing manuever.

An independent accident reconstructionists was on the scene & came up with the same conclusion. The Moody vehicle had completely passed through the curve & had entered the flat,straight, unobstructed road that is 121st Street.

And, because the Moody vehicle had entered the curve at 50mph & slowing, that would make the best guess of his speed starting the pass, at between 45-50mph.

Isn’t it amazing how Ford’s Attorney’s could take a set of near truths & then bend them to fabricate a case. It’s a far cry to have a rollover that actually occured at a speed of 40-42mph, on a level, straight, unobstructed section of road with a legal limit of 50mph verses the way they tried to twist the facts to make it appear that he was going 67mph in a legal zone of 30mph & that he had rolled trying to pass in a no passing zone, on a curve. UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!

I know you must be tired of reading, but this far into it I might as well finish the story. According to the accident reconstructionists, as the Moody vehicle attempted to pass, he swung out just a little wide as he was passing the car in front of him causing his two tires on the drivers side to drop slightly off of the paved surface onto a dirt & gravel shoulder.

Like most drivers in that situation, Moody pulled hard to bring the vehicle back on the road & back across to his side. Eye witnesses of the accident said it appeared Moody had regained control of the vehicle but suddenly the backwheels slipped & fishedtailed causing the vehicle to slide off of the road on the right side & put the vehicle in a brief passenger side slide, off the paved road in a grassy strip adjacent to the paved strip. Shortly thereafter the passenger side wheels “caught” in the grass, causing the Explorer to tip & continue rolling in the grass for approximately 1&1/2 rolls, coming to rest upside down on it’s roof.

Both Ford’s & the plaintiffs experts agreed the actual trip speed was most likelty 40-42mph. Ford’s expert actually admitted the trip speed may have been as low as 38mph.

Ford tried to paint the rollover itself as horrifically violent & unsurvivabe. Another lie! The rollover was actually a relatively mild, low impact, & highly survivable event. What is the proof? 1st, the rolling vehicle never hit anything solid, no other vehicle, no tree or rock or concrete barrier, literally just the grass. 2nd, the energy was dispersed over many brief cotacts points over almost the entire vehicle & over a total distance of almost 200′. & finally, both boys in the car were TOTALLY UNSCATHED by the actions of the rollover itself, no broken bones, no laceration, no internal bleeding, nothing!

The passenger was able to release his seatbelt and crawl out on his side with only a few minor scratches on his hand. The driver, an extremely fit distance runner & mountain climber also had NO injuries of any significance, truly only a few small scratches. The only difference in the outcome for the two boys, the defective roof strucure on the driver’s side had completel failed causing the roof to crush in, clam-shelling the Moody boy so tightly, he was unable to take in even one full breath to help sustasin him until rescuers could arrive.

A final major distortion on Ford’s part: they say they are being unfairly blamed for the accident. That absolutely is not true & they know it. For the purpose of the lawsuit, the “cause of the accident “is accepted to be driver error. But that was not the basis of the lawsuit in which the jury had to make their finding.

The action against Ford was regarding the “cause of the injury”, in this case death, & whether Ford had pre-existing knowledge of roof defects, the ability to correct them, & then choose not to.

Ford knows & has known for more than a decade, that SUV’S in general & Explorers specifically are MUCH MORE LIKELY than passenger cars to tip into a rollover in even moderate accidents. Ford engineers brought to the attention of Ford’s executive management that the roof supports were not adequate & would likely crush to unacceptable, life threatening amounts if not reinforced.

Ford had been in an economic slump & production of the Explore had lead the revival of the ailing Ford. The profit margin was 38.8%, a whopping $10,000. per car and production couldn’t keep up with demand. When the defect was first exposed, Ford’s Financial advisors did a cost analysis & determined that it would be cheaper to settle future lawsuits, than to stop production & loose profits & risk ternishing the image of their shining star performer intheir lineup.

Their estimates were not TOTALLY wrong. The Explorer went on to be the best selling SUV of ALL TIME with over 5 million vehicles produced generating $50 billion dollars in profits for Ford. Yes, that was billion with a “b”. Perhaps the only thing they hadn’t calculated was the total devastation to the individuals & their families, fo those that lost their life, or were permanently maimed &/or seriously injured due to Ford’s blind pursuir of maximum production & profits.

Finally, as far as the money awarded, unfortunately, in our legal system, it is the ONLY punishment allowed by law. Before the trial Ford’s representatives asked the Moody’s what kind of a settlement they were looking for. They said they knew nothing could ever bring their son back, they just wanted Ford to acknowledge & fix the problem. Ford declined & chose to go to trial. A Federal jury hearing 8 days of testimony & cross examination determined the rest.

I think the Explorer roof performed as designed.
.
The article says his “his neck was pushed into his chest by the intruding roof” which was intentional, because like the rest of us Ford knows that if you are so retarded as to take a 30mph corner at 67mph, you need to die, and the intent of pushing your neck into your chest is is both practical and humane in that it:
1) ensures you are no longer a burden to society,
2) severs your nerves from your brain so you can’t feel the pain,
3) keeps you from looking for a way to survive which you don’t deserve,
4) keeps you from looking at the disaster your idiocy caused, and
5) gives the rest of us a reason to laugh at your sorry butt.
.
Kudos to Ford, and I hope they kick ass in appeal.

All the family and lawyers wanted was money, yet money didn’t fix anything. You can’t replace a loved one with any amount of money. The lawyers got half of that judgment, and they’re very happy.

Look, if the family and lawyers really wanted to make this world a better place, they would sue to require Ford and other automakers to strengthen the roofs of SUV’s for rollover accidents. If they automakers don’t comply, then they will be forced to pay $15 million in penalty payments. But no, the low life’s parents and their blood sucking lawyers just wanted to make money off of a stupid tragedy. They should be ashamed of themselves.

I hope the appelate courts hang these ambulance chasers out to dry and gives Ford back its money (which we as consumers will all be paying for one way or another). This liberal nonsense of the big company which is always evil and out to kill everyone against the little guy who can do no wrong no matter how stupid he is, HAS GOT TO STOP!

People need to be responsible for their own actions, and their own mistakes. This kid made a mistake. A mistake that cost him his life. Ford didn’t make the mistake. He did.

I’m sorry, I guess you’d rather be talking **** to us than to a stupid kid that broke the law. Well since you don’t believe in God, I guess it makes sense…

As for the teachings of Jesus, you don’t have to be a fanatic to follow in his footsteps. True, there are some seriously hypocritical followers who consider themselves pious, but you should not be fooled by them because they are not what it’s all about. Unfortunately, it only takes a few bad apples to ruin it for everyone.

90Z: You’re getting overly technical, I’m being “so blatantly disrespectful” to people who are being crude and rude about someone dying that they no nothing about. And if the “teachings of jesus” promote so much respect, why are so many religious fanatics completely intolerant, completely bigoted, and totally out of touch with reality?

Lambo, why refer to Jesus if you don’t believe in God? Then it is certainly not my imagination.

If you don’t know what the accident means, here may help you….

ACCIDENT–An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
(Source : http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/accident )

Clearly….the event that caused the death of the moron is not something that unexpected nor undesirable (by him) because he intended to do so. So, this is not an accident. He simply wanted to get himself killed.

So…stop your non-sense.