Ford Reaches Settlements in Dozens of Truck-Rollover Lawsuits Prior to $1.7 Billion Verdict

Ford Motor Company has seen a decrease in their stock prices of 6.98%.

On Monday, a legal team is set to present their case for a retrial in a truck-rollover lawsuit that resulted in a $1.7 billion jury verdict in Georgia during the summer.

The lawsuit in Georgia state court is unique in that it went to trial. Over the course of nearly two decades, Ford has settled numerous lawsuits brought by individuals who claimed that people were killed or severely injured in rollovers of heavy-duty trucks in which the roof caved in.

The strength of the roof on older-model Super Duty pickups sold by the company over a period of approximately 17 years has been a point of contention.

A lawsuit in Georgia has been brought forward due to a fatal rollover crash in 2014 involving an elderly couple in a Ford F-250 pickup. The plaintiffs' attorneys are claiming that the victims were crushed inside the truck when the roof collapsed during the accident. Ford, however, has argued that the truck is not defective and that the roof structure is safe as designed.

Before the record-breaking $1.7 billion jury verdict in Georgia, Ford had been the subject of at least 58 lawsuits concerning rollovers and roof crush on their heavy-duty trucks manufactured between 1982 and 1999. This information was gathered and analyzed by The Wall Street Journal.

An analysis of the grievances revealed that 38 people perished due to the mishaps mentioned in the legal actions and many more were severely hurt, including those who were left paralyzed or with quadriplegia.

Forty-three of these lawsuits were resolved through agreements in which the details were either not disclosed or not made public, as indicated by court documents and the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

The legal actions are alike in that they are focused on Ford's Super Duty line of heavy-duty trucks sold between 1999 and 2016. These vehicles had the same basic roof structure.

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer representing the auto manufacturer, reported that Ford has been victorious in four lawsuits concerning the trucks in question, three of which were determined by a jury.

He commented on the Journal's review of the cases, stating: "I don't believe it is reasonable to make any assumptions about the source of the accidents or the injuries based on the claims made."

Ford has contested the $1.7 billion Georgia ruling, claiming that their trucks are secure and the roof in question is more robust than other vehicles. They have also suggested that other elements can lead to harm in a severe rollover accident.

In September, the auto maker based in Dearborn, Michigan submitted two motions to the court, asking for a new trial and a reversal of the punitive damages that were determined by the jury's verdict.

Altogether, Ford reported that it sold approximately five million of its heavy-duty trucks between 1999 and 2016.

Given the size of the company and the amount of vehicles sold annually, the amount of settlements Ford has reached concerning its heavy-duty trucks is not unexpected, according to law professors who specialize in product liability.

When a safety issue arises, it can lead to a large number of legal cases against one or more car manufacturers, particularly if there is the possibility of a large financial settlement, as noted by the professors.

The strength of car roofs in rollover crashes has been a contentious issue in the automotive industry for many years, leading to numerous lawsuits against various car makers and hefty jury awards, such as those against Ford and General Motors in the 1990s and early 2000s for other models.

Ford stated that the cases that had gained a lot of attention due to their verdicts were not related to heavy-duty trucks. GM chose not to make a statement.

Rollover accidents are among the most dangerous types of car accidents, with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimating that they will cause 7,600 fatalities in 2021.

Rollover cases are often settled due to the high costs of litigation for both parties, as they often require more experts than other product-liability suits, according to Ron Porter, a data expert for Lex Machina, an analytics firm for legal professionals. Additionally, car companies face significant financial and reputational risks if they take the cases to trial, he noted.

Mr. Porter, who was an attorney for GM for 30 years and defended the company in rollover cases, noted that these types of cases can lead to serious injuries and large verdicts. He also pointed out that they have the potential to generate negative publicity.

In the late 1990s, Ford released a new series of heavy-duty trucks, the Super Duty F-250, F-350, and F-450. These models are some of the largest and most powerful vehicles that the auto manufacturer has ever produced.

In the spring of 2014, Melvin and Voncile Hill, a married couple of 48 years, were driving their 2002 Ford F-250 pickup truck from their farm in Georgia when a tire suddenly burst, resulting in the truck rolling over.

James Butler, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, declared that when the truck overturned, the Hills were trapped inside due to the roof caving in. Later that year, the couple's family initiated a lawsuit, and during the trial, Mr. Butler argued that Ford was conscious of the risks the roof structure posed.

Mr. Butler reported that Ford had tried to come to an agreement with the Hill family before the case went to court. However, the Hill's children were determined to have the case heard by a jury, he added.

Kim Hill, a son of the couple, expressed in a statement from Mr. Butler that he desired to take the case to trial after discovering about fatalities and injuries associated with other lawsuits that had been settled previously.

According to Mr. Hill's statement, which was provided by an attorney, companies often prefer to settle cases in order to prevent the plaintiff from having a platform to speak. He added that someone had to take a stand and put an end to this practice.

Ford's legal team has argued that the tire on the couple's truck was not suitable for the load it was carrying, which led to its rupture.

The incident caused Mr. Hill to drive his truck off the road at an unsafe angle, according to Ford. They also argued that the Hills were not wearing their seat belts, which Mr. Butler denies, citing torso injuries in the autopsy report.

Ford argued for a new trial, claiming that they were not able to adequately defend themselves in the Georgia case due to sanctions imposed by a judge in an earlier hearing of the lawsuit. The judge did not provide any response to requests for comment.

Ford has expressed their intention to present evidence in the event of a new trial, which they believe will demonstrate that the roofs of their trucks were safe in their design, according to Mr. Boutrous.