Mazda Ruling Opens The Way For Ford Lawsuit

Edward Niedermeyer
by Edward Niedermeyer

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against Mazda is re-opening at least one more lawsuit against an automaker, noting

The Ford case focuses not on seat belts but on the type of glass the company chose to install in its 1997 F-150 pickup. The plaintiff alleged Ford was liable in the death of a passenger in an F-150 who was ejected during a 2002 accident in which the truck veered off the road and rolled over several times.

The victim wasn’t wearing a seat belt, and his mother alleged he would not have been ejected had Ford installed laminated side windows on the truck instead of using tempered glass. Federal safety regulations gave Ford a choice in which type of windows to install.

The case now goes back to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the lawsuit was preempted by the federal regulations.

It’s not clear at this point if other OEMs will be vulnerable to re-opened lawsuits based on the Mazda ruling, but don’t be surprised if the Supreme Court’s decision continues to cause legal headaches for automakers.

Edward Niedermeyer
Edward Niedermeyer

More by Edward Niedermeyer

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 31 comments
  • John Horner John Horner on Feb 28, 2011

    I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of 1997 vehicles used tempered, not laminated, glass for the side windows.

  • Michal Michal on Feb 28, 2011

    That F150 crash test video shows just how badly Chinese vehicles are designed and built... shocking crash test result. They should not be allowed into the country. Mmm, what? It wasn't Chinese? Never mind then.

  • Crosley Crosley on Feb 28, 2011

    America is FAR too litigious of a nation, the fact that automakers spend more money defending lawsuits that they do on research and development tells you all you need to know about how destructive our sue-happy culture has become to society. Cars are dangerous, period. Ford was not negligent, the dumbass who drove off the side of the road without his seatbelt was. We need a "loser pays" system like they have in most countries in Europe. If you sue a company or an individual and lose, you're responsible for ALL legal fees. That would cut 90% of the frivolous lawsuits.

  • Wmba Wmba on Mar 01, 2011

    I'd like to complain about the state of railroad tracks in the 1840s. Due to outright cheapness on the part of RR companies, iron strips were laid on pine or spruce board to make the rolling surface. As the strips often came loose, it was not uncommon for these lengths of metal to curl up, punch through the floor of carriages and kill people. They were called "snakes". My contention is that the RR companies ought to or should have known that this kind of thing would happen, and are legally liable for the deaths and injuries caused by their obvious callousness towards other humans. Even if it was 170 years ago. I'm pleading on behalf of Aunt Bertha, my great, great, great aunt on my mother's side, who was speared by a "snake" and died a gruesome death on the Upper Plockitockit and Tamarack RR. The family needs closure, as four generations have grieved her unhappy and untimely death, and we need to buy more Kleenex and a little estate in the country for our troubles. Liability issues killed the US light aircraft industry, and now a bunch of idiotic "judges" want to do the same for the car industry.

Next