Ford and the $20 Roof Fix

Ever found yourself at an airline gate, standing in a barely moving line, when all of a sudden some idiot bypasses everyone, and audaciously pushes to the front?  It’s that sort of obnoxious sense of entitlement—that sense “these rules don’t apply to me” that permeates this next story.

Benetta Buell-Wilson, mother of two, was in a Ford Explorer rollover crash from which she basically should have walked away.  Instead, she is paralyzed from the waist down and is now living a life of constant pain because the roof crushed in, collapsed on her neck and severed her spine.

The Explorer’s roof was designed with a major - yet easy to fix - defect.  In fact, in her lawsuit, it became clear that had Ford spent just $20 per vehicle to strengthen the roof, which it knew was weak and a big problem because Explorers easily rolled over, Benetta would be OK.  Accordingly, a jury slapped Ford with significant punitive damages, letting it know that such behavior is just not tolerable (just as a jury did almost 30 years ago in the famous Ford Pinto case, where the company refused to make an $11 fix.) 

Here’s where the airport-like audacity comes in…Ford apparently thinks that, unlike every other culpable corporation that puts profits over safety, it shouldn’t have to pay punitive damages no matter who is hurt or killed due to its defects, as long as cars meet weak and outdated “safety” standards.  (We’ve covered roof crush accidents before, not uncommon in this industry.)

Consistent with its Wyeth ruling (i.e., federal regulation and state tort remedies aren’t mutually exclusive and must co-exist), U.S. Supremes took a pass on hearing Ford’s argument, without so much as a comment.

Let’s hope the jury’s lesson is permanent this time.