Ford Rollovers Result In Mixed Verdicts

Jury verdicts continue to be mixed in Ford Bronco II, Ranger and Explorer rollover litigation. Two early verdicts, one amounting to $26 million and another for $18.2 million indicate that juries are willing to find Ford’s frequent defense of driver error, speed and road conditions dubious. However, last year a jury found in favor of Ford, finding the Explorer was not defective.

The Bronco II, introduced in 1983 and produced through 1990, has been at the center of the rollover debate for years. The Bronco II and Ford Ranger’s narrow track width and high center of gravity, combined with its twin I-Beam front suspension result in a vehicle that is prone to roll during emergency maneuvers. Documents produced in Bronco II/Ranger litigation show that Ford was aware of the high rollover risk of its design and that the vehicles should have a lower center of gravity, wider track width, different tires and a different front suspension to make them more stable. Injured consumers have alleged in numerous lawsuits that rather than change the design, Ford changed its test procedures, rushing the Bronco II to market in order to compete with GM, and then prepared to address imminent litigation.
Meanwhile, a government investigation of Bronco II stability ended without a defect finding or recall. The National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that the Bronco II was no worse than other vehicles in its class. The issue was revisited by the agency in 1999 when additional documents surfaced in litigation that had not been produced to NHTSA during its investigation. The agency in 1999 closed its inquiry based on the age of the vehicles and the need to prioritize limited resources.

Ford introduced the 1991 Explorer as a replacement for the Bronco II and did not change its design until 1995. The pre-1995 Explorer retained the twin-I beam front suspension from the Bronco II despite its inherent problems, which allegedly causes the vehicle to lift under significant lateral forces. Lawsuits allege that lifting or “jacking” raises the vehicle’s center of gravity, narrowing the track width and causing oversteer and loss of control. Plaintiffs argue Ford’s testing demonstrated that the Explorer exhibited the dangerous “jacking” problem yet Ford went ahead with its production. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ claim that documents show that Ford could have made changes to the vehicle to increase stability. However, the changes that the company ultimately made were fairly insignificant, and the slight changes in tire pressure, tire types, the number of occupants, and the load can increase the center of gravity worsening vehicle stability.

In February 2002, NHTSA announced that it denied the request of Bridgestone/Firestone to open a safety defect investigation into the handling and control characteristics of the Ford Explorer. In NHTSA’s preliminary evaluation of the materials produces by Firestone, it concluded the data did not support Firestone’s contention that the Ford Explorers are more likely to “cause a loss of control following a rear tread separation and tire failure than other, comparable SUVs.” Just as it had in the past with its non-defect finding in its Bronco II investigation, NHTSA chose once again to take a narrow, limited look into a complicated and hazardous situation.