I! c:
`1,. ,
UNITED STATES PISTRKT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
01 J&t,
INDJANAPOLTS DIVISION :!,:,,I
`I
b, ! I /I (rr.
In re: BRIDGBSTONE/FIRESTONE, INC., : Master File No. IP OO$%%%/s"
ATX, ATX II AND WILDERNESS TImS : MDL No. 1373
PRODUCTS LTUILITY LlTIGnTION (centralized before Hon. Sarah
Barker, Chief Judge)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL 1
ACTIONS
MXMOJXANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTBORITIES
SUPPOKT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIRF AGAINST DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY
1. TNTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs file this opening memorandum in support of their Notice of Motion for
Preliminary Injunctive Relief Against Defendant Ford Motor Company, filed herein on June 1,
2001, because the evidence now overwhelmingly establishes that the Ford Explorer, model years
1391 through 2001, is unreasonably dangerous and poses an immedialc and real threat to the
safely of millions of American motorists, both in and of itself and when used in deadly
combination with the unreasonably dangerous Firestone Tires which are also the subject of this
litigation.
In their original motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs set forth evidence and
reasons militating slrongly in favor of the need to itmnediatcly remove millions of dangerous
Firestone Tires from the road, especially given the unique risks associated with the use offhose
tires on the Ford Explorer, and will not repeat that analysis here, The evidence is now
SNIPPETS:
Preliminary Injunctive Relief Against Defendant Ford Motor Company, filed herein on June 1,
2001, because the evidence now overwhelmingly establishes that the Ford Explorer, model years
safely of millions of American motorists, both in and of itself and when used in deadly
In their original motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs set forth evidence and
reasons militating slrongly in favor of the need to itmnediatcly remove millions of dangerous
dangerous roll-over propensity of the design Ford later chose to ificorporate into the
over the objections of its own engineers.
what Ford renamed the Explorer after Consumer Reports detailed and publicized the Bronco II'S
The Explorer shares with its prior incarnation identical design flaws that produce the same
known that the Explorer suffered from this same design flaw as a result of it own testing.
solve the roll-over problem, Real world testing data, both that gathered by NHTSA and that
will do so -- the outcome could well take years, This Cowt has the authority, and the
preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant their motion.
production deadlines and maximize profits, The cvidcnce to be advanced during an injunction
what might be called `public interest" litigation.
`The 1991-1994 model Explorer was equipped with twin-I&cam or twin-traction beam front
due to Ford's failure to Iowcr the cnginc when redesigning the suspension, Thus, all model
II was sold to the public in 1983 as a 1984 model, The design was patterned after the Jeep
"Jacking" means that in a turning maneuver, the track width squeezes together causing the
Ford internal document No. 8013-14.
Ford trucks had a propensity to "jack," just as other "swing axle" suspensions discussed in
19 year old plaintiff sued Volkswagen of America after her Volkswagen (equipped witi a "swing
I4 The engineers concluded that a 2inch increase in track width was the minimum required for
I6 Neither of these recommendations was ever implemented.
This is called the a vehicle's static stability factor, or SSF (SSF = T/2H where T is the
|
