A mower deck is not to be used by children, Im sure if it was they would make them A LOT safer, This is a huge Family car, mine even has a 9th seat because it's made for large familys.... A warning label would do no good for the children who ride in these cars all the time and have not learned to read, yes it was my falt for shutting the door on her finger. I should have known she was getting out the wrong way, I will never forget what I did but if that hinge was coverd she would not be going through all of this now.

 

Wait, wait, wait... Are you for real? Seriously... get an attorney! Stop feeling guilty! you aren't the one making millions off of putting products into the stream of commerce. Ford is! It is Ford's responsibility to design the vehicle components safely. This is clearly a design defect for which your innocent daughter should be compensated. This is a text-book products liability claim. Manufactures and every party in the distribution chain is strictly liable for injuries stemming from the use of their product. There are a few exceptions, but without getting to deep into legal theory, this isn't one of them! Vehicles are not excepted. Get an attorney!

On a lighter note, you might also want to get your daughter to a surgeon unless the sargent that gave her medical attention was also a board-certified doctor.

Best wishes.

 

That is just mean and it's to bad Ford has people like you working for them, Maybe you should open the frunt and middle door and take a look at what she is talking about, I think Ford would like some ideas on how to make this safe for kids and they would not like that you would talk about there customers as if they would be dumb and put there kids finger in a hood or tail gate she only asked that this was looked at she did not say it was the Trucks falt. It brings so much trama to everyone who sees a child's finger CUT off and it is somthing you never would forget. If it can be fixed why not try to help find a way. If you want me to tell you what to look at I would love to help but at least take a look at what we are talking about.

 

Mattineer has a soul mate!

 

Sorry, brother, but well-developed legal theory holds the manufacturer strictly liable for injuries as a result of using the product (in other words, if someone gets hurt with a product that could be made safer without substantially raising production costs, they are liable... period). If we didn't have such a law, the products we buy would look a whole lot different and be a whole lot more dangerous than they look today.

 

She didnt get hurt using the product, She got hurt by closing her hand in the door.

If she cut her hand on a sharp corner getting in or out of the vehicle FORD might be liable. But its a no brainer that closing a door on your hand will result in substantial injury.

Its like putting your hand in a washing machine thats on spin cycle.

When you break a few fingers you cant turn around and sue Maytag.

 

My intent wasn't to address the legality of either situation, but rather to compare the common sense factor (or lack therof) even after being warned and given a second to pause and ponder the consequences.

I don't pretend to know the first thing about liability lawsuits, but I do know a thing or two about not sticking my finger where it doesn't belong!

 

not 1 problem with mine, 25k miles and hasn't been into service once

 

yes I ment Surgeon , her finger was stiched back on and then they did surgery 2 days later to attach the bone with a pin and it has been a roller coster ride every scince with infection and the tissue dying but this week it seams to be taking so we are able to breath a little better , Thanks for the best wishes!

 

I don't have time to pull case law for you, but you'll have to take my word for it - a plaintiff need only show that a product is defective in a products liability claim. The standard for determining whether a product is defective is whether the product is unreasonably dangerous. It's a no brainer to me (and apparently a majority of the legal community) that losing a finger because your hand was caught in a door is unreasonable. For the sake of debate, I wish it could be argued otherwise, but I don't believe it can be.

I think you might be getting a little side-tracked with the idea that the injuries in this case stem from the negligence of both the mother and child. Children under 4 years of age are usually considered without capacity to be negligent. Children over 4 years of age are generally held to the standard of a child with like age, intelligence, education, and experience (unless the child is engaged in an adult activity, in which case, they are held to an adult standard). Mom may have been negligent for closing the door on the child's hand and for not adequately supervising the child. But even where mom and child were negligent, there negligence would have to be gross in nature, and not merely ordinary negligence. Even if mom and child were grossly negligent, their negligence would be attributed a percentage, and Ford would still be liable for the remaining percentage under products liabilty theory, assuming the hinge was found to be unreasonably dangerous.

This is all very boring legal talk, and it is actually pretty dense stuff. I just wanted to give you a little insight into what the standards are. I think we can likely all agree that losing fingers in a car door is an unreasonable risk for a vehicle manufactured within the last 20 years (at least), nevermind a '04 - '06 vehicle. Breaking fingers is another story - there's a certain assumption of risk there, and really, how else would you make a door that wouldn't cost so much money in design and testing to price all of us out of ever owning a vehicle. At any rate, trust that Ford will have their staff of attorneys ready to mount a defense to these claims. In the meantime, let's try to refrain from pointing the finger at this family, considering the trauma they've had to endure, and likewise, considering the courage they've exhibited in sharing their story with us in an effort to make us all aware of the dangers posed by the hinge mechanism of our doors.

 

Back to the original topic - or at least one of them. Having grown up in So Cal, with a family cabin in Big Bear, I can tell you that the CHP does not care if you have a 4x4. There were many times they were enforcing chains on ALL vehicles, regardless of having a snow rated tire or 4 wheel drive. There were a few times when they let me go through without chains, but there were more times they made me install them.

 

minus_13: Do you think I could sue Honda for when I broke my back since I broke my back on their bike? I was never told I could break my back or any other bones? CHA CHING!!! . . haha, Im just messing around. Its late!

 

I almost slid with brakes applied into an avalanche I was trying to pull out on the street (not really ice, just slick with a small grade. You need chains in many instances.

 

is what it is called with the back windows down, very common. it's created by unequal air pressure in the cab while at the same time air entering the cab and trying to exit the cab as well...

 

I noticed this one also. Found that if I pop up the sunroof, it takes care of the problem though.