Jury orders John Deere to pay $5 million for Stillwater man's tractor death

[ruffdog]

"Same as buzzards and worms,lawyers gotta eat too".

Another one over a fire:

John Deere Sued Over Wildfire | Industrial Equipment News (IEN)

 

[Industrial Toys]

Just to play Devils Advocate. These highly public lawsuits must be worth their price in public education and fostering awareness. Much like accident reports.

 

[MossRoad]

Sorry Moss, but I'm not reading it that way...

Then read it this way...

"Carlton Hearn, a product safety engineer for Deere & Company, testitfied that the tractor was supposed to be configured ready for use at the dealership, and there is a checklist dealers go through to ensure a tractor is ready for use.

Among the checklist items was the installation of ballast to to prevent rollover and injury. "

 

[Industrial Toys]

"prevent" seems totally unrealistic.

 

[BRMyers]

So, if this lawsuit stands, will all JD tractors get recalled since they are a known safety hazard and have to be checked for rear ballast?

 

[KennyG]

The more I read about this, the more amazed I am. The claim is they were negligent in not ballasting the tractor, but it had a box blade. If they had insisted he buy the ballast box, it would have been taken off to put on the box blade, and the box blade probably weighs as much as the recommended ballast. If you can roll a tractor 1-1/4 times with a loader and box blade attached, I doubt that loaded tires would have eliminated the problem.

The only way I can see that this tragedy could have been avoided would have been a seat belt interlock and non-foldable ROPS. It's probably only a matter of time.

 

[ovrszd]

There are plenty of lawyers for "stupid", but not enough labels for "stupid".

I gotta write that in my "favorite quote" book.

 

[ovrszd]

The more I read about this, the more amazed I am. The claim is they were negligent in not ballasting the tractor, but it had a box blade. If they had insisted he buy the ballast box, it would have been taken off to put on the box blade, and the box blade probably weighs as much as the recommended ballast. If you can roll a tractor 1-1/4 times with a loader and box blade attached, I doubt that loaded tires would have eliminated the problem.

The only way I can see that this tragedy could have been avoided would have been a seat belt interlock and non-foldable ROPS. It's probably only a matter of time.

Yep. And the only awareness these lawsuits promote is more lawsuits.

 

[MossRoad]

"prevent" seems totally unrealistic.

Yep. You can make things user resistant, but you can't make them user proof.

However, it's their wording, not the user's wording. They said it. Did they not mean it? :confused3:

That's what jury's look at. The wording. They said it, so it must be their fault.

 

[ovrszd]

Yep. You can make things user resistant, but you can't make them user proof.

However, it's their wording, not the user's wording. They said it. Did they not mean it? :confused3:

That's what jury's look at. The wording. They said it, so it must be their fault.

I agree Moss. Their written verbiage and their idiot "expert" buried them.

I don't like it, but I agree.