| By Norman G. Schneider Firestone has lately
shown all the signs of wanting to pay high verdicts and settlements to
people who have been injured in crashes involving the failure of their
tires.
First, Firestone apparently made defective tires. Then the company's
officials stated that they didn't know that the tires were defective.
Then they claimed that some tires might have been defective, but that
any accidents were due to mistakes by the drivers or by the manufacturer
of the vehicles, most notably Ford. And most recently, following
deposition testimony that was contrary to testimony before Congress,
Masatoshi Ono retired. Ono was the top officer in the U.S. branch of
Bridgestone/Firestone Inc.
Depositions are oral statements taken under oath outside of a
courtroom which are recorded by a stenographer. As President Clinton's
deposition showed, statements made in these sessions are just as sacred
to the judges as statements made in a courtroom. Similarly,
Congressional testimony is also covered by the rules against perjury.
No Admission of Corporate Liability, Former Exec Says
Nevertheless, in a deposition given on October 9, as part of lawsuit
filed against both Firestone and Ford, Ono testified that the public
apologies made by him and other Bridgestone/Firestone executives during
September's congressional hearings on the recall should not be construed
as an admission of corporate liability, stating that "At present, we
have not concluded whether or not there was a defect . . . However, we
have to acknowledge there may have been safety related problems -- there
were safety related problems."
Ono also contradicted John Lampe, the new head of the company, who
had testified during the congressional hearings that only a "very, very
small percentage of these deaths" were due to tire failure. Ono claimed
that he didn't know the basis for Lampe's statements. "Right now, what I
can say is we have not discovered defects," Ono added. Lampe's
deposition is expected to occur on Oct. 12 in Nashville.
Little Credibility Left
Firestone has little credibility left among consumers. As discussed
in a
previous article, tire failure cases often result in confidential
settlements which restrict the ability of plaintiffs and their attorneys
to discuss the details of the case, the materials gathered during the
case, and the amount of the settlement. Through this secrecy, little has
been known about how Firestone's tires have performed and what defects
they have known about.
However, the secrecy surrounding these settlements simply compounds
Firestone's public relations problems, because for every statement they
make about how they didn't know about the defect or how the defect was
someone else's fault, a former plaintiff comes forward to show that
Firestone is not telling the truth. They're even coming forward at the
risk of losing whatever settlement award they were given.
Between the contradictions before Congress, in depositions, and in
statements to the public, Firestone is quickly eroding any possible
goodwill that people might have for the company's long history of good
tire production.
Assembling the Class
Personal injury lawyers are now attempting to pool the people who
have been injured and the information discovered in their cases and are
attempting to bring a class action lawsuit against both Firestone and
Ford.
Class actions are a type of complex litigation in which people with
similar claims join forces under a court's supervision in an attempt to
minimize the costs and duplicative efforts necessary to prove each
individual case. In most of these cases the typical secrecy concerning
information and settlements is avoided and information about all aspects
of each individual case is disseminated to all the people who join the
class action lawsuit.
Incentive for Plaintiffs' Attorneys
A successful class action suit usually results in a large award for
the class of plaintiffs from which a huge chunk is taken by the lawyers,
which is one reason that lawyers are willing to sacrifice years of
effort and thousands of hours of time that could be spent working on
other cases. Without the ability to form a class action, each person
might have to bring his or her own lawsuit in isolation from all the
other people who have suffered similar tire failures. Each case on its
own would not only be more difficult to prove, but was also be expensive
to bring and time-consuming for both the lawyers and their clients.
Class action lawsuits are generally less expensive and less
time-consuming for each individual plaintiff.
In the end, if Firestone settles a large class action lawsuit, it
might be forced into bankruptcy or receivership. If so, each plaintiff
might receive only a fraction of what they could have received from a
solvent company. It will be interesting to watch not only the attempts
to sway the public's reaction to Firestone tire problems, but to watch
their efforts to maintain a viable corporation in the face of extensive
litigation. |
