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.
