Supreme Court denies Ford’s appeal over $83M rollover judgement

Supreme Court denies Ford’s appeal over $83M rollover judgement
By Nick Aziz - Posted December 1st 2009

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Ford that called for a reduction in the damages it must pay to a woman who was injured in an Explorer rollover accident. Ford argued that it should not be punished for the incident, but the court refused to even hear the appeal.

The saga began in 2002 when Benetta Buell-Wilson crashed the 1997 Ford Explorer she was driving. Mrs. Buell-Wilson swerved to avoid a piece of debris on Interstate 8 east of San Diego, resulting in a high-speed rollover.
The roof of the SUV collapsed, leaving Buell-Wilson a paraplegic.
She and her husband sued Ford, claiming the particular generation of Explorer was dangerously prone to rollover accidents. Moreover, the suit alleged the roof of the SUV was unacceptably weak and that Ford could have spent an extra $20 per vehicle to make the roof substantially stronger.
In 2004, a jury awarded $369 million in Buell-Wilson’s favor. A third of the amount was to compensate her for losses, while two-thirds account for punitive damages. In other words, $244 million as punishment for selling a dangerous product.
In 2006, a state appeals court reduced the total to $83 million, while maintaining the same ratio of compensatory to punitive damages. Ford’s appeal to the Supreme Court wanted the punitive component, or $55 million, tossed.
Neither Ford nor Buell-Wilson have released a statement.
52 COMMENTS
1. RaineMan240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Don’t really know what to say here. I feel for the woman… but at the same time they always teach you in driver’s ed DON’T SWERVE.
  
  Anyone driving a SUV knows the rollover risk. It is printed all over the owners manuals and there are warning stickers in the vehicle too.
  
  I had a cousin killed when she ran her Lincoln Navigator off the road and flipped it. I don’t remember anyone in the family taking Ford to court over that one.
  
  Reply
2. idrinorbarsaku240 days ago
  0 0
  
  This case makes no sense. $20 dollars to make an suv withstand a rollover? Yeah right! I’m going to find another junk vehicle and roll over so I can sue them too! Go to driving school, they will tell you that avoiding something can cause more harm than actually hitting that thing. And I’m sure roll-over parameters were really not even set, let a lone a rollover on a freeway/interstate!
  
  So, after driving at high speeds, and driving the SUV in a manner it was not intended to be driven in, it flipped over…. NO FLIPPIN WAY…YOU DON’T SAY!!!!
  
  Reply
3. Fx NauGhtY240 days ago
  0 0
  
  I guess ford never put a warning vehicle could roll over like toyota did to their 4runner on the sun visor
  
  Reply
4. 0-60240 days ago
  0 0
  
  WOW.. That is a lot of money for this one case. Which makes me wonder what it will cost toyota for their rollover cases and they have a few of them.
  
  Reply
5. A4240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Fx, Explorers had those warnings all over the sun visors, this woman is just a prime example of what is wrong with America. Put the blame on yourself. You bought the car, you had government crash ratings and warnings available to you, and you rolled the car. Your fault.
  
  Reply
6. RaineMan240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Unfortunately American society is a prime example of Reverse Darwinism… survival of the most idiotic.
  
  Reply
7. artmark240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Hey Lady – You’re alive! Your SUV probably saved your ass. I’ve seen mini-van rollovers and they are a lot worse than an explorer when on anything besides their wheels.
  
  Maybe you should have been reading the back of your sun visor instead of avoiding / turning / flipping / rolling over and loosing control.
  
  Darwin missed this one. In leu of a Darwin award, you get $83 Million.
  Not a bad deal. So you can’t walk. There are worse things in life. Like driving around in a wheel chair equipped mini van.
  
  Reply
8. easyrider240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Sad, tipifies all that is wrong with the U.S. Probably an illegal with a fake license.
  
  Reply
9. RICERisNICER240 days ago
  0 0
  
  America is the only country where you can cause an accident and make millions out of it. Was it worth swerving so you wouldn’t hit some small piece of debris that would barely affect your car in order to flip and destroy your vehicle? Apparently yes, worth $369 million. That makes a Maybach Exelero seem affordable when you have that kind of money.
  
  Reply
10. BuyUSA240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Toyota drivers get awarded a judgement of BBQ’ing to death.
  
  Reply
11. johnnycanuck240 days ago
  0 0
  
  It was a few years ago now that I was driving one of the company’s Cavaliers to work during the morning rush and I was distracted by a police car who had somebody pulled over off by the side of the road. It was only a few seconds but when I returned my attention to the road ahead all the traffic in my lane had come to a complete stop. Instinctively I slammed the brakes but it only took another split second to realize I was not going to stop before imprinting the Chevy bowtie on the back of some unsuspecting 3-Series, so I took my foot off the brake and just whipped the steering wheel to the right. At that point I had no idea if anyone was beside me… luckily there wasn’t… and traffic was moving in the other lane. I must have missed that BMW by inches but I pulled it off and in all honesty, much to my own disbelief.
  
  Now if I had performed that violent a maneuver in the same Explorer as our lady in the story I have no doubt a high speed rollover would have been the end result. My point is sometimes you don’t have time to think about the physical dynamics of what it is you’re driving or about to do… you just react.
  
  Reply
12. MercMark240 days ago
  0 0
  
  RaineMan you are sooooo right. Darwin would cry.
  
  Reply
13. NMOFGMs Daddy240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Man, I now know exactly where my millions is gonna come from!! Thank you America!!
  
  Reply
14. Ic3m4n240 days ago
  0 0
  
  @JCanuck, you are right about not thinking about the physics of your actions because as you mentioned there might only be a split second to react, but it doesn’t make sense to be able to successively sue someone because of driver error. the U.S. Supreme court has basically set a precedence that if you get severely injured in a vehicular accident, that was your own fault, you can sue the manufacturer and win.
  
  Reply
15. Cardemon04240 days ago
  0 0
  
  this is stupid… she rolled a large vehicle at high speeds. it’s her fault. The fact that it may have fared better if ford had spent more money is irrelevant. know your car, and drive accordingly… and most importantly, take responsibility for your own actions. not saying it doesn’t suck for her, we all make mistakes and it’s not fair that her mistake should paralyze her, but life’s not fair and Ford shouldn’t be held responsible for her mistake. this is one of the many injustices in our Legal system.
  
  Reply
16. NMOFGMs Daddy240 days ago
  0 0
  
  I am gonna hire a Mexican, promise to give him half a mil, tell him to roll a car over, I hire a lawyer on his behalf, keep him out of the loop, collect my $83 mil, he goes back to Mexico livin large, and I…………. living larger.
  
  Reply
17. hoff14240 days ago
  0 0
  
  RE:JohnnyCanuck
  Yes ofcourse she reacted but based on HER OWN REACTIONS she then decided to sue Ford for her own choice of driving. That’s the problem here, it’s not that sure she decided to swerve even though they say not too. W/e good reaction time on the old girl, but they were still her reactions and she chose to do them! done and done live with your own actions or “reactions”
  
  Reply
18. hoff14240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Re Ic3m4n
  Ahmen, nailed it there!
  
  Reply
19. NMOFGMs Daddy240 days ago
  0 0
  
  American dream right there son!
  
  Reply
20. Zesty Honda240 days ago
  0 0
  
  @cardemon, you’re just heartless dude!
  
  Reply
21. save saab240 days ago
  0 0
  
  I never heard of this story but I mean are you kidding me! There are warnings that say high roll-over risk, it’s all these people’s fault for not driving safely and buying SUVs’ in the first place. I mean I feel sorry for Buell-Wilson for her crushed spine but, shouldn’t she have known the risks of driving a BOF SUV?. And also what if I was driving a smart car and a drunk driver crashed into me (something like a Hummer) and I was injured for life. Would I sue the person, yes, would I sue Mercedes/Smart? No. It’s my fault for buying the car in the first place.
  
  Reply
22. blkdog240 days ago
  0 0
  
  You guys are unbelivable, you slam the Chinese for putting out an inferior product that lacks saftey but when it is an American product that was incrediblly deficent you blame the driver. At the end of day this judgment is ment to tell the manufactures to build there vehicles safer as in roll stability control and incresed roof strenghth standards so if we have to swerve to miss your dog, or child on the road there is actually a chance of serviving.
  
  Reply
23. Ic3m4n240 days ago
  0 0
  
  @blkdog. all vehicles, whether domestic or foreign, are subjected to safety/crash testing by the government. So if the government deems a vehicle “safe” why would a manufacturer spend more money on the vehicle than is required? If you are looking to put the blame on someone put it on the government.
  
  It is extremely unfortunate what happened to the lady in the article, but by no means should Ford be forced to pay millions
  
  Reply
24. 05Z88Path240 days ago
  0 0
  
  I feel for this lady, I really do. But at the end of the day you have to accept your actions and not blame everything on someone else (or their product). Can I sue the manufacturer of a kitchen knife if I trip over while holding the knife and cut myself severely? You should only be able to sue if the manufacturer made a product with some kind of defect that means it fails safety and/or product regulations. For example, if the lady turned on the ignition key and the Ford Explorer just burst into flames…not her fault…so then she should sue. But getting hurt in an accident in a vehicle that passed Federal crash test requirements. No way. There’s a million ways we can die or get injured everyday. Deal with it.
  
  Reply
25. leftwingagenda240 days ago
  0 0
  
  meh…”deal with it” doesn’t pay the medical bills when they pile up (which will be coming for her entire life – adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions)…this is one of those real nasty scenarios…you basically have to go bankrupt in order to qualify for the financial assistance you need to get necessary medical care…forced poverty…not fun…
  
  that’s a bit off topic, though…really, whether ford should’ve been charged 55 million in punitive damages is questionable…there was no expressed guarantee when she bought the car that it would keep her intact after such an accident, in my mind, although apparently the court felt otherwise…now, if the explorer failed some national safety standard for rollover protection – and *then* she was hurt in that accident, there could be a legal argument of some kind…but if there was no existing rollover standard, then i’m not really sure how they framed their argument ford is at fault here…
  
  Reply
26. NMOFGMs Daddy240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Can Tiger Woods sue GM for his injuries, I bet his lawyers are working on it!!
  
  Reply
27. jdasch1240 days ago
  0 0
  
  So where is NHSTA on this one?? So this money award was made without the warning or recall from the government?? No recall here?? Toyota is going to need all of that 5 billion they journeled off for their current problems if people can sue and win this kind of money from no real data condemning the product. Gotta love the civil courts. Does this country need tort reform?? YES..
  
  Reply
28. 03T4R240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Well said RaineMan. Where’s the personal responsibility here? Does this now mean that every idiot that flips their SUV is going to sue the manufacturer? On the principle of the matter, I know a guy that sued Dunkin Donuts after tripping on a carpet and injuring his shoulder, clumsy dumba**.
  
  Reply
29. The Stig240 days ago
  0 0
  
  @Ic3m4n,
  
  Absolutely correct. Dangerous precedent as it doesn’t take into account personal responsibility.
  
  Reply
30. Krugeri240 days ago
  0 0
  
  “it doesn’t make sense to be able to successively sue someone because of driver error.”
  
  She is not suing them because of driver error, she is suing them because a big metal box she was driving in and thought would protect her didn’t. I don’t agree with the award, myself, but to claim – prima fascia – that this woman doesn’t deserve to make a claim is dismissive.
  
  I agree with Johnny’s point. In an emergency situation you are must concerned with the immediate danger not the one 5 steps away. Given the same situation many of us might have reacted the same way. And I can tell you that if a loved one of mine was injured in a crash and I found evidence that the company, any company, knew the roof was weak and did nothing about it while knowing their product was more prone to rollovers than any other auto on the road I would sue them too.
  
  Reply
31. tastyorange240 days ago
  0 0
  
  This is just another example of Ford knowing their products were substandard and didn’t do anything about it… just like some of their cars blowing up when hit in the back because of bolts puncturing the gas tank.
  
  The roofs should have been stronger. PERIOD. Ford was (and maybe still is) only interested in cost effectiveness for many years.
  
  That roof should NOT have collapsed like that. This is a well known weakness with the Explorer and that’s lady has EVERY right to sue. It’s not just about flipping over easily.
  
  Reply
32. A4240 days ago
  0 0
  
  NMOFGMs Daddy: He can’t sue GM because all Escalades come with a “douchebag clause” and a subsequent waiver removing all liability from GM’s shoulders if you’re obnoxious enough to buy one.
  
  Reply
33. Pazzo Canguri240 days ago
  0 0
  
  This is just absolute BS…..take responsibility for your own actions……this is just pathetic…
  
  Reply
34. jayjc08240 days ago
  0 0
  
  You can argue all about how safety regulations weren’t up to par, and you can blame the state. Yeah, they weren’t up to par, and should have noticed this flaw in the Explorer. But in the end, on Ford’s part, they should not only be concerned with making a profit, but the safety of their vehicles. When it’s no longer just a “product” your selling (automobiles are a necessity, and so is fuel, food, homes/shelters, etc.) you HAVE to be concerned about safety unless you want your ass sued, or sales falling. Both ended up happening to the Explorer.
  At the same time, I don’t feel so sympathetic for the drive either. Swerving at highway speeds to miss what, a dead animal, a good sized rock? I think this was an involuntary reaction, swerving off, because I’ve done that before to miss things. You’ll always assume that you can change things for the better, so of course she’s going to swerve without even thinking about it! It’s not only that, it’s an avoidance reaction…
  But being awarded $83 million, originally more than a quarter billion $$ for her injuries? An injury can never be “paid back” with money, but both sums are ridiculous. Funny thing is, these sort of “frivilous and outrageous lawsuits” happen every day!
  
  Reply
35. DrFill240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Bad drivers + bad vehicles = Big lawsuit
  
  Cheap roof, bad handling, exploding Tombstone tires
  I got tired of putting those sleds on the road, so I left
  Soak ‘em.
  DrFill
  
  Reply
36. johnnycanuck240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Tombstone tires… I can’t believe I’ve never heard that before. Good one Doc.
  
  Reply
37. jdasch1240 days ago
  0 0
  
  so Fill…..good drvers + runnaway Toyota’s = big problem for Toyota salesman with a conscience?? Maybe you should find a better Ford dealer than the one you worked at before…..the grosses are better I hear. Just a thought….
  
  Reply
38. carfreak240 days ago
  0 0
  
  The award may be excessive, but many of you are missing the point. She won because she was able to show that Ford’s own engineers had recommended changes to Explorer (lowering ride height/center of gravity, stronger A and B pillars) because they believed the vehicle was unusually prone to rollovers when operated as they expected most customers to do. Ford management chose not to make changes despite their own internal expert’s advice. Thus the angry jury award.
  
  Reply
39. DrFill240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Johnny
  I coined that phrase back on the lot in 2001
  Had T-shirts made and everything………definitely needed the extra income back then
  Focus had 10 recalls it’s first year
  Pretty hard finding an Expedition without a Check Engine light
  My, isn’t this a lovely recession were having this year?
  
  Memories…………
  DrFill
  
  Reply
40. psiclone240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Shouldn’t this come down to whether the vehicle was deemed acceptable by safety regulations when it was made? Meaning, were there no tests done then or are there none that can be done now to determine if there is an abnormally high potential for roll over or to determine if it met applicable requirements at the time? If it was deemed acceptable but minimal for its time, how can there be a case? If it was deemed unacceptable by regulations, wouldn’t there be a recall involved rather than or in addition to punitive damages? Additionally, if someone other than the driver is to blame, wouldn’t it seem more logical to find the owner of the debris responsible (assuming it was human-related) rather than Ford? Wow, this whole thing is nuts. Kind of like the lady that got rich for spilling some of the hot coffee that she ordered on her lap because she apparently didn’t know her hot coffee was hot.
  
  Reply
41. psiclone240 days ago
  0 0
  
  carfreak, assuming that is true, you just answered most of my questions and it would seem that the case is more involved than most of us are aware of.
  
  Reply
42. johnnycanuck240 days ago
  0 0
  
  I’m busting a gut here Doc! That’s some of your finest work.
  
  Reply
43. monte240 days ago
  0 0
  
  Ic3m4n: you are absolutely right, ford should not be at fault for a vehicle that passed the neccessary tests. This story really hits home for me. I was also paralized in an accident last june doing 130+ mph. I have never once thought about sueing or blaming anyone but myself. People like this need to own up and stop acting like whiny babies. Even if ford was at fault this lady should only get the wage she would have made for the rest of her life plus a good chunk for suffering, but $83 M is rediculous. Everyone is just greedy these days, thats why health and auto insurance is so expensive from all the lawsuits. So to all the people complaining others aren’t being sensitive, I’m in the same boat and think she’s a dumba$$.
  
  Reply
44. j-dubb240 days ago
  0 0
  
  funny how everybody immediately refers to Toyota, what a– holes This is a Ford article, this was just the tip of the ice berg over 355 customers lost their lives and counting after they were thrown out of their Ford explorer/merc mountaineers. Ford been makin ****ty, dangerous, unreliable vechicles for a long time!
  
  Reply
45. easyrider239 days ago
  0 0
  
  EFF TOYOTA, they are the most dangerous company in the world. Illegals shouldn’t be allowed to drive.
  
  Reply
46. dAVE mAN239 days ago
  0 0
  
  It’s not that I agree with her getting that kind of money, but Johnny and the others have a very valid point about the train of thought while avoiding an accident. On more than one occasion (I do A LOT of highway driving) I’ve had to switch lanes very rapidly and just hope I was correct in my assumption that there was no one in my blind spot. I generally keep up a good perception of what’s around just for such cases, but no one can do that 100% of the time.
  
  Also, I do find it funny that everyone assumes she was avoiding a “small rock” or dead raccoon or something that easy. I’ve had to dodge everything from small truck tire fragments to *A 10 FT LADDER* laying on the road. Hell, one time I had to avoid two buckets of cement that fell off the back of a truck in front of me… in the RAIN. Luckily, I was driving cars with decent handling so I guess the moral of the story is don’t drive an SUV.
  
  Reply
47. Ic3m4n239 days ago
  0 0
  
  DAVEMAN, whats worse running over something like a truck tires or a ladder, and possibly do minor damage to your vehicle or try to swerve at a high speed, most likely to roll over. Point is, as others have mentioned, in driver’s-ed they teach people to swerve if it can be done safely, if you cannot do it safely you should just hit whatever it is that you are trying to avoid.
  We aren’t given all the information about the accident so people are just going to assume on there on what happened, like the debris its not mention what it was so people are randomly deciding what the debris was.
  
  Reply
48. TroyRx239 days ago
  0 0
  
  I bet this wouldnt happen to GM
  
  Reply
49. dAVE mAN238 days ago
  0 0
  
  Something tells me hitting a ladder at 80mph would cause far more than “minor damage”. One would probably lose complete control of the car… Other than that, I see your point. Problem is, people get in their big suvs and think they are invincible. And when they find out the truth hard way, they get exorbitant cash rewards apparently.
  
  Reply
50. dAVE mAN238 days ago
  0 0
  
  Also when you see a large piece of road debris coming at you at 80mph, your train of thought in that split second isn’t exactly “well, in drivers ed they said to safely swerve… hmmm should I swerve? How much do I swerve… wait let me get out the white board and do some calculations… center of mass is…” it’s a little something more like “oh f*ck me! that’s a ladder!”
  
  Jus sayin
  
  Reply
51. chevymanc6238 days ago
  0 0
  
  Yes this was a terrible crash and it sucks that she ended up that way in a roll over but Ford did not cause the accident and everyone knows that an suv can easily roll over. She has no right to sue Ford.
  
  Reply
52. sharpie237 days ago
  0 0
  
  Gee people, Ford did cause the accident based on product liability. Punitive damages is based on malice and I think the fact that mere $20 per car could improve safety, but Ford chose to cut corner proves it.
  
  As to comment like “Dangerous precedent as it doesn’t take into account personal responsibility.” How do you know that the jury wasn’t instructed to discount their verdict through comparative negligence? Trust me, they took that into account!
  
  All come down to it, the Supreme Court won’t listen to piece-meal case unless it has any legal significance. This does not qualify. Ford is basically asking the Court to take on the role of the jury on appeals. Ford is not contesting the liability part of the case, only the punitive damages part which comes after the jury found Ford liable.
  
  Now someone brought up an interesting point: would you all naysayers change your minds if the name Ford is substituted by some Chinese or Indian car companies? Ignorance is bliss people. If Ford or any car companies design their cars to go 65+ miles per hour, the roof structure should not collapse like the one in the picture at that speed in case of an rollover. That risk of rollover is fully foreseeable!
  
  As to “we all should drive safely” type arguments, sure we all do that 99% of the time. But I bet each and everyone of you swerve at least once in your life for whatever reason. For this lady, she was unlucky to be driving a flawed product, wrong place at the wrong time.
  
  Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.