The New York Times points out in an Editorial today that plaintiffs’ recent wins against tobacco companies are a good thing – they are. And that more such awards and verdicts would be an even better thing because it would force funding of more anti-smoking campaigns.
San Francisco injury attorneys like myself can tell you the same thing about other industries, workplace environments, and corporate boards and officers that put investors, consumers, and the public at risk time and time again despite a plethora of state and federal regulatory agencies and departments.
What is implicit in the Times’ Editorial is that without plaintiffs’ cases – lawsuits brought by injury victims – fundamental reforms, the removal of unsafe products, and consequences for corporate malfeasance would go unpunished and unaccounted for time and time again. So, I am thankful for personal injury attorneys and plaintiffs’ lawyers taking these cases and taking on these companies on behalf of injury victims.
On this day after Thanksgiving when many are sprinting, climbing, and jumping through hoop after hoop to get deals on gifts and products, I am still counting those things for which I am thankful. And living with a rule of law that provides access to the courts where plaintiffs both big and small can take on the likes of a tobacco company is certainly at the top of my list.
Also at the top of my list is the fact that UT beat A&M last night – hook’em!
Injury Victim’s $82.6 Million Award Let Stand
Monday, November 30th, 2009In January 2002 a 46 year old mother of two was driving her 1997 Ford Explorer near San Diego. Swerving to avoid an object on the highway she lost control and rolled 4 1/2 times. The roof collapsed on her neck, severing her spine; she was paralyzed from the waist down.
A California jury awarded her $369 million against Ford finding that Ford knew that the Explorer had design defects making it prone to rollovers. The jury’s verdict included $246 million in punitive damages.
That award was taken up on appeal by Ford and eventually reduced to $82.6 million. But Ford continued to appeal to the US Supreme Court. And the Court ruled today rejecting Ford’s challenge to punitive damage portion of the award, which was $55 million.
Ford had asserted that it should not be punished because its Explorer met federal safety standards – a defense manufacturers have often tried to assert in order to reduce jury verdicts.
The case is Ford v. Buell-Wilson.
Tags: San Francisco injury attorney comments on Ford personal injury verdict let stand.
Posted in News, Product Liability | No Comments »