Lawsuits filed by The Law Firm of Pajcic & Pajcic and other law firms on behalf of people injured by defective Ford Explorers manufactured from 1991 to 2001 and by defective automotive parts have led to significant improvements in vehicle safety.
The 2000 four-door Ford Explorer that Claire Duncan was driving had a two star rollover resistance rating out of five stars, based upon its static stability factor or rollover potential. A two star rating means that the vehicle was about three times more likely to roll over in a single car accident than one with a five star rating. In contrast, the 2013 Explorer has a four-star rollover resistance rating, so it is significantly less likely to roll over than the vehicles involved in our cases.
The concurrent problem was that the 2000 Ford Explorer had the weakest roof of any sport utility vehicle sold in the United States at the time, resulting in many deaths and injuries. Ford’s own statistics showed that between 1991 and 2001, someone died in a Ford Explorer rollover somewhere in the United States every three days. The newer Ford Explorers have much stronger roof structures. Indeed, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has now doubled the minimum roof crush resistance standard for all vehicles from 1.5 times the vehicles unloaded weight to three times the vehicles unloaded weight.
This photo shows a model of the same height and weight as our client. She has to tilt her head inboard because the roof collapsed down to her shoulder.
In the Duncan case, we were highly critical of the 2000 Ford Explorers restraint system, because it allowed Claire Duncan to be partially ejected even though she was wearing her seatbelt. She received fatal injuries to her head. Newer Ford Explorers, and indeed most new cars and trucks, now have side curtain airbags that deploy in rollover situations to prevent occupants from being partially ejected like Claire Duncan was.
While it was not an issue in the Duncan trial, our work in the Firestone tire cases allowed us to focus on another across-the-board vehicle safety issue involving tires. In the United States, Firestone and most other tire manufacturers, as well as most automotive manufacturers, represented and testified that a properly designed tire would be good for the life of the tread, regardless of its age. We had a client who bought a used 13-year-old Ford station wagon. While driving it, he noticed a tire was losing air and going flat. He replaced the flat with the full-sized spare tire that was in the wheel well because it looked brand-new and appeared to have never been used. Unfortunately, the tire detreaded while our client was driving the vehicle at highway speed, causing a loss of control that led to a crash and injury.
This photo shows a model of the same height and weight as our client. She has to tilt her head inboard because the roof collapsed down to her shoulder.
Our investigation showed that the tire was the original spare that had been sold with the vehicle. It was 13 years old, but had never been used and, indeed, the tread was intact. However, the tire had rotted from the inside and was highly dangerous. Further investigation showed that some foreign auto manufacturers had long included warnings in their manuals that tires should be replaced after six years, regardless of the amount of tread remaining. We discovered that Firestone’s own website in England actually recommended replacement of tires after four years. Firestone’s representatives in the United States professed ignorance of Firestone’s own representations in Europe. At any rate, now most manufacturers include warnings about aging tires, and NHTSA recommends replacement of tires after six years, or at least having one’s tires checked professionally every year after five years of age up to a maximum of 10 years. Aging tires are now a well recognized hazard.
If you have been seriously injured or lost a loved one as a result of a poorly designed or manufactured automobile or automotive part, talk to a knowledgeable product liability lawyer at The Law Firm of Pajcic & Pajcic. We have the experience and knowledge to investigate cases of vehicle crashworthiness and obtain justice for our clients after serious accidents. Contact us by calling 855-402-5010 or fill out our online contact form to receive a free review of your accident.
Lawsuits filed by The Law Firm of Pajcic & Pajcic and other law firms on behalf of people injured by defective Ford Explorers manufactured from 1991 to 2001 and by defective automotive parts have led to significant improvements in vehicle safety.
The 2000 four-door Ford Explorer that Claire Duncan was driving had a two star rollover resistance rating out of five stars, based upon its static stability factor or rollover potential. A two star rating means that the vehicle was about three times more likely to roll over in a single car accident than one with a five star rating. In contrast, the 2013 Explorer has a four-star rollover resistance rating, so it is significantly less likely to roll over than the vehicles involved in our cases.
The concurrent problem was that the 2000 Ford Explorer had the weakest roof of any sport utility vehicle sold in the United States at the time, resulting in many deaths and injuries. Ford’s own statistics showed that between 1991 and 2001, someone died in a Ford Explorer rollover somewhere in the United States every three days. The newer Ford Explorers have much stronger roof structures. Indeed, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has now doubled the minimum roof crush resistance standard for all vehicles from 1.5 times the vehicles unloaded weight to three times the vehicles unloaded weight.
This photo shows a model of the same height and weight as our client. She has to tilt her head inboard because the roof collapsed down to her shoulder.
In the Duncan case, we were highly critical of the 2000 Ford Explorers restraint system, because it allowed Claire Duncan to be partially ejected even though she was wearing her seatbelt. She received fatal injuries to her head. Newer Ford Explorers, and indeed most new cars and trucks, now have side curtain airbags that deploy in rollover situations to prevent occupants from being partially ejected like Claire Duncan was.
While it was not an issue in the Duncan trial, our work in the Firestone tire cases allowed us to focus on another across-the-board vehicle safety issue involving tires. In the United States, Firestone and most other tire manufacturers, as well as most automotive manufacturers, represented and testified that a properly designed tire would be good for the life of the tread, regardless of its age. We had a client who bought a used 13-year-old Ford station wagon. While driving it, he noticed a tire was losing air and going flat. He replaced the flat with the full-sized spare tire that was in the wheel well because it looked brand-new and appeared to have never been used. Unfortunately, the tire detreaded while our client was driving the vehicle at highway speed, causing a loss of control that led to a crash and injury.
This photo shows a model of the same height and weight as our client. She has to tilt her head inboard because the roof collapsed down to her shoulder.
Our investigation showed that the tire was the original spare that had been sold with the vehicle. It was 13 years old, but had never been used and, indeed, the tread was intact. However, the tire had rotted from the inside and was highly dangerous. Further investigation showed that some foreign auto manufacturers had long included warnings in their manuals that tires should be replaced after six years, regardless of the amount of tread remaining. We discovered that Firestone’s own website in England actually recommended replacement of tires after four years. Firestone’s representatives in the United States professed ignorance of Firestone’s own representations in Europe. At any rate, now most manufacturers include warnings about aging tires, and NHTSA recommends replacement of tires after six years, or at least having one’s tires checked professionally every year after five years of age up to a maximum of 10 years. Aging tires are now a well recognized hazard.
If you have been seriously injured or lost a loved one as a result of a poorly designed or manufactured automobile or automotive part, talk to a knowledgeable product liability lawyer at The Law Firm of Pajcic & Pajcic. We have the experience and knowledge to investigate cases of vehicle crashworthiness and obtain justice for our clients after serious accidents. Contact us by calling 855-402-5010 or fill out our online contact form to receive a free review of your accident.