The award to Ms. Wison should be reduced another $6,000,000, the value of a human life, because the seat belts and the strenght of the car frame saved her life.

His first comment mischaracterizes my analysis and ignores my rebuttal. Rather than play Argument Clinic in response to this troll, I refer people to the Outlook, pp. 3-4. Justinian’s argument is solely to repeat the court’s “reasoning,” but the court’s reasoning was a complete non sequitur: every factor it includes as evidence of it being “misleading” is actually evidence of the data’s probity. That the court’s claim that the FARS data was misleading is disingenuous is demonstrated, inter alia, by the fact that they permitted the plaintiffs to introduce data about Bronco II rollovers despite the fact that that data suffered from the same “flaws” as the FARS data, and had the additional flaw that it didn’t even refer to the vehicle being accused as defective except by analogy. Plaintiffs were permitted to introduce their data, including anecdotal data; Ford was not permitted to put that data in a larger context.

His second and third comments attempt to rebut my normative argument by making a positive argument. Aside from the fact that Lane mischaracterizes the law, even if he was correct, his argument is especially silly when the law in question was created by the court decisions I’m arguing are wrong. The California legislature never passed a statute holding such evidence inadmissible; that was done by court fiat. It wasn’t improper to admit comparative evidence until the court said it was. Justinian’s argument in support of the court’s decision continues to be “because they said so.” That’s not an argument against a proposed policy change made by the other two branches of government to fix the problems created by the court’s decision, and Lane provides absolutely no reason why that policy change should not be made other than his reflexive defense of a plaintiff’s verdict.

2: Neither Grimshaw nor Buell-Wilson was tried in a jurisdiction that allows such this sort of empirical evidence to be introduced. Perhaps backfired isn’t the best word, but Ford’s attempt to base their defense at least in part upon the admission of such evidence was foolish.

3: You ask, “The majority of states admit this evidence; are they doing so improperly?” Not if that’s the law of the state. It’s not the law in California, so the court was following the law by refusing to admit it. Would you prefer the court to ignore the law to get a result you agree with?

2) You write: “By backfired, I mean Ford tried to introduce improper evidence, and it wasn’t admitted.” First, that’s not what “backfired” means. Second, the evidence isn’t “improper” for reasons I describe in the paper and that you ignore in your response. The majority of states admit this evidence; are they doing so improperly? If so, you give no reasoning for that conclusion, other than to cite to the California precedent that I criticized.

Such bootstrapped arguments and non sequiturs and mischaracterizations of my argument are not addressing my arguments head on.

Not sure what you mean about the inaccuracy of the court’s description of the case: Both you and the court acknowledge she swerved to avoid a piece of metal, rolled over, and suffered serious injuries. That’s what I wrote.

My main criticism of your criticism of California’s evidentiary rules is that you completely ignored the fact the court found the evidence in question to be unreliable and misleading. It’s unreliability is a separate reason for the court to refuse its admission. Your paper doesn’t refute the court’s assertion that the evidence was unreliable and misleading – only that industry standards & custom evidence should be permitted to be introduced. I’m not sure I agree with that. Here’s why: You cite a bunch of statistics regarding the safety record of cars that competed with the Pinto. Isn’t it possible that they were all defective deathtraps?

By backfired, I mean Ford tried to introduce improper evidence, and it wasn’t admitted, thus undermining their legal strategy.

I’m glad that Ford got to introduce the evidence in Indiana. However, since criminal cases have a higher burden of proof, not too many conclusions can be drawn.

As for failing to address your arguments head-on? I would call quoting portions of your paper and then refuting them point by point “addressing them head on.”

You’re right, I did forget to link to your paper. I thank you for the courtesy of linking to my post, and I will edit my post to link to yours.