Motor Vehicle Defect Warning - 1987 Ford F-150 Post-Collision Fire Danger

Motor vehicle defect attorneys will admit that the 1987brake fluid, not gasoline, and that a check valve would
Ford F-150 poses serious fire dangers when involvednot have prevented the foreman's personal injuries.
in a car collision. In 1995, a 24-year-old landscapeExperts countered, claiming the fire was fed by 12 to
foreman was driving his 1987 Ford F-150 truck on16 gallons of gasoline.
Route 97 in Maryland. When another truck crossed theThis is another example where an inexpensive part
center line and collided with the truck, the F-150 burstcould have saved both plaintiff and defendant a lot of
into flames. The man was trapped inside andsuffering and expense. In this case, a $1 part that was
conscious for several minutes as bystanders tried toinstalled in other cars might have prevented gasoline
free him. He subsequently suffered third-degree burnsfrom spilling out, horribly burning and permanently
over 65 percent of his body and lost his right arm andmaiming a young man. It also could have saved Ford
right leg. His medical bills totaled $1.4 million, and hemillions of dollars.
expects his future medical expenses to be in theAfter a four-week trial, a Baltimore jury awarded the
millions of dollars.foreman over $26 million in damages. This included $15
The foreman driving the F-150 truck filed suit againstmillion in non-economic damages, which was reduced
Ford, his auto product liability attorney alleging thatby the Court to $500,000, the maximum apparently
design problems--specifically the lack of anallowed under Maryland law. The award was one of
anti-siphoning device--in the1987 F-150 pickup allowedthe largest in Maryland's history. The foreman plans to
gasoline to pour out of the tank after the car collisionuse the money to continue therapy and obtain artificial
and fuel the fire. His product liability attorney furtherlimbs.
alleged that the F-150's seat belt was defectiveFord insisted that the product defect allegations lacked
because it would not open after the impact, thusmerit and that the jury was swayed by overwhelming
trapping the foremen in a burning vehicle.sympathy for injured victim and the personal injuries he
In a post-crash vehicle fire, a critically important defectsustained.
is gas tank siphoning. Sparks from the cars electricalIn choosing to leave out a $1 part that other vehicles
components, metal scraping metal on metal scrapinghad wisely incorporated, Ford jeopardized the safety
roadway can ignite the siphoned fuel. Most carsof its customers. The foreman's action in taking Ford
manufactured after the early 1980s have three fuelto court clearly shows how our justice system works
lines: supply, return, and vapor lines. Siphoning occursto compensate those who have been needlessly
most often in the return line or supply line. It can beinjured. The jury's award is America's message to
prevented in many cases by a variety of simple,Ford that their failure to act was not acceptable.
inexpensive safety valves that were available yearsHopefully, this lawsuit will help convince Ford to
before the 1987 F-150 truck was manufactured. Fordrespond effectively to known safety defects to
documents from as early as the 1970s discuss theprevent further serious personal injuries.
various checks or shutoff valves that would remedyWe extend our sincerest sympathies to the injured
this potential hazard.foremen for all the pain and personal injuries he has
Ford's experts testified that the F-150's fire was fed bysuffered. We wish him well.