Supreme Court makes it easier to sue big companies and police

[DonViejo]

Source: NBC News


The rulings make it easier to sue for alleged vehicle defects in states other than where an auto is made and sold, and for police use of excessive force.

March 25, 2021, 12:05 PM EDT
By Pete Williams

In two decisions Thursday, the Supreme Court made it easier for consumers to sue companies that have a nationwide presence and to hold police accountable for excessive use of force.

In a unanimous ruling, the court said Ford Motor Company could be sued for allegedly defective vehicles involved in accidents in Montana and Michigan. One case was brought by family members of a Montana woman who died in the crash of a 1996 Explorer that her family members said had a design flaw. The second lawsuit was filed by a man claiming he was injured in the crash of a defective Crown Victoria in Minnesota.

Ford said it could be sued only in states where the vehicles were actually designed, manufactured or sold. The company originally sold the cars at issue in these two cases in other states.

But the court ruled that because Ford markets, sells, and services its products nationwide, state courts can consider product liability lawsuits against the company. The opinion, by Justice Elena Kagan, said Ford is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan, "but its business is ever

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-makes-it-easier-sue-big-companies-police-n1262055

[Moostache]

1. Reminds me of "Fight Club"...

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

You wouldn't believe the shit that corporations CHOOSE to ignore because it is more profitable to do nothing than to admit guilt.

[CaptainTruth]

10. Reminds me of a car I had years ago, rear brakes quit working.

I lived in snow (& salt) country then & apparently rust caused the caliper mechanism to lock up, so no rear brakes.

A mechanic I trusted said it was a known problem & suggested I take it to a dealer, which I did. The dealer confirmed the problem & added me to the list of cases they reported to the manufacturer. Apparently all the dealers were seeing this problem & pressuring the manufacturer to do a recall. I also wrote to the manufacturer & let them know that my future car purchases would definitely be influenced by how they handled this situation.

I was in college & didn't have much money, & the dealer said they were seeing so many cars with this problem that they felt a recall was likely, so I opted to just continue driving the car without rear brakes & hope for a recall. Then, lo & behold, about 10 months later I received a postcard informing me of a recall on my car due to a rear brake issue, & saying I could take the car to any dealer & have the rear calipers replaced at no charge. Which I happily did.

I guess that means "B" in your equation got large enough that they didn't want to risk a lot of "C."

[BComplex]

2. The excessive use of force is interesting:

Held: The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued. Pp. 3–18. (a) The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-able searches and seizures.” This Court’s precedents have interpretedthe term “seizure” by consulting the common law of arrest, the “quin-tessential” seizure of the person. Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 585; California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621, 624. In Hodari D., this Court explained that the common law considered the application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain to be an arrest—not an attempted arrest—even if the person does not yield

I wonder how this is going to be applied in the future.

[JudyM]

5. Seems to be another good angle to use in excessive force cases, now with clear applicability.

We’ll take it!

[AZLD4Candidate]

8. Knowing the way it is now, expect more "feared for my life" statements

while they do this, thus making the burden of proof on the abusee, not the abuser (to use poorly, made up English words).

We need another Warren Court desperately.

[Dawson Leery]

3. kick

[GregariousGroundhog]

4. Ford's argument was pretty ballsy

"You cannot sue us in Montana for a design flaw because we did not sell that particular vehicle in Montana, even though we sold thousands of identical ones there!"

[Oldem]

6. I feel as if I'm dreaming or

in an alternate universe. SCOTUS rules against big companies and cops???

The ruling allowing a suit against a NM state policeman was 5-3 with Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the libs. My head is spinning!

[link:https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/us-supreme-court-widens-ability-to-sue-police-for-excessive-force/ar-BB1eXFVS|

[bucolic_frolic]

7. This seems very out of character for them.

But the legal profession will be well rewarded with more litigation!

[Deminpenn]

9. Having driven the Mercury version

Grand Marquis, those cars are like tanks! I wonder how this guy got injured.