San Francisco Injury Attorney Blog

Ford Motor Corporation was in the Illinois Supreme Court this month trying to overturn a jury verdict of $43 million dollars in a case where a car accident resulted in the death of one man, and severe burns to his wife, according to news reports. The case was previously appealed from the trial court's verdict, which the appellate court justices unanimously upheld, in a 72-page opinion.

In the accident, a Lincoln Town car was hit from behind, causing a wrench in the trunk to fly into the gas tank, rupturing it and causing an explosion. This might seem like an unlikely occurrence, such that Ford might not be held liable. But the plaintiffs were able to show that Ford was aware of many, many prior similar instances of gas tank rupture, and had done nothing to prevent further explosions.

This case is an excellent example of the legal concept of foreseeability. In order to hold a person or company liable for damages caused by a product, the law requires that the damage which resulted to be something that was reasonably foreseeable. While a wrench flying into a gas tank might not have been considered foreseeable when this model originated, it certainly becomes foreseeable when the company can be shown to know that car accidents with explosions of this type have been occurring for years. Here, Ford had even warned police departments about this hazard, which was also present in the Ford Crown Victorias in police service. Additionally, there was evidence that Ford had known going back to the 1960's that the "behind the axle" location of the tank in these vehicles made it more vulnerable to rupture, and that the location could have been changed for about $10 per vehicle. It was this same fuel tank location that cost Ford millions in verdicts for Ford Pinto gas tank ruptures.

This verdict included $15 million in punitive damages. Challenges to punitive awards have had increasing success in the courts in recent years, on the basis that punitive damages should bear some reasonable relationship to the actual damages. Often a factor of ten to one is applied, and appellate courts hold that the plaintiffs should not receive more than ten times their "actual" damages in punitive damages. This argument won't work here, where the punitives were less than the actual damages, which were largely based upon extensive additional medical expenses. Coming up from a unanimous ruling from the court of appeal, I doubt Ford will have much luck in the Illinois supreme court in this case.

Continue reading "Car accident results in $43m verdict against Ford" »

There were two stories in the news recently about pilots who had been drinking, and were removed from their planes before takoff. The most recent such story of an airplane accident avoided involved a Delta Airlines flight from London to Boston, where the pilot was flagged after telling the tower that he was headed to New York. In that case, the pilot was severely intoxicated.

Another recent news report of an intoxicated pilot involved yet another Delta flight, this one from Amsterdam to New York.

As an air passenger, I hope that pilots will have absolutely no alcohol in their systems. It may be surprising to learn that the U.S. has a blood alcohol limit for airline pilots, rather than a rule of zero tolerance. The FAA limit for a pilot's blood alcohol content (BAC) is .04-exactly half the California limit for driving a motor vehicle. There is sentiment for taking this limit down to zero. This debate was the subject of a piece in USA today following the incident with the pilot on the Amsterdam-New York flight.

Fortunately, airplane accidents involving intoxicated pilots are seemingly rare, but count me in among those who would favor zero tolerance for pilots who have been drinking recently enough to have measurable alcohol in their systems.

Continue reading "Airplane Accidents Avoided: Intoxicated Pilots Removed From Cockpits" »