The Ford;Firestone Case
On June 24, 2001, the New York Times published a story asserting that a traffic safety research consultant and some consumer lawyers may have known about a failure pattern of Firestone tires on Ford Explorers in 1996 and did not alert the government safety agency about this pattern "out of concern that private lawsuits would be compromised." Only one lawyer was identified in the story.
Sean Kane, the safety consultant quoted making boastful statements about his early knowledge of the Ford-Firestone problem, has since issued a statement disputing key elements of the Times’ story, including the allegation that he was aware of a pattern of Firestone safety defects as early as 1996. He now says this awareness occurred in 1998, at which time, he claims, he informed the national media. In short, there now appears to be a substantial question about the accuracy of his statements in the article.
According to Kane, in 1998 he was aware of only five Ford/Firestone lawsuits, of which one resulted in a defense verdict. Another two of the five had been publicized in 1997 by a Texas television station. The remainder of the claims of which Kane was aware consisted of consumer complaints that were filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and publicly available, yet did not trigger an agency investigation. An investigation finally began after a reporter for KHOU Houston in January 2000 blew open the manufacturers’ cover-up. Her major source of information was the consumer attorneys representing victims of the Ford/Firestone fiasco.
The Times story provides only a partial picture of who has the responsibility to report suspected safety defects and the impact of such information, and thus could be used to lay blame at the wrong doorstep. Without the information provided by consumer attorneys, the true Ford/Firestone story may never have been told and consumers might still be driving on bad tires. Below is...
Please login to view the full essay...