Comments on: Update: Rose Marie Munoz v. Ford https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/update-rose-marie-munoz-v-ford/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:23:44 +0000 hourly 1 By: William Nuesslein https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/update-rose-marie-munoz-v-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-21114 Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:23:44 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7127#comment-21114 This is so sad. Tire failure will not cause a rollover. It is straight forward physics. A car is not a horse!

]]> By: Barry Nordin https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/update-rose-marie-munoz-v-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-20831 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:35:43 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7127#comment-20831 I’m glad to hear Mr. Braugh’s “true facts.” I’m tired of hearing “fictional facts.”

And I didn’t know “farce” was spelled with an “s”, not a “c”.

]]> By: Bill Poser https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/06/update-rose-marie-munoz-v-ford/comment-page-1/#comment-20827 Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:43:28 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/?p=7127#comment-20827 One question that doesn’t seem to be answered in the earlier posts and comments: as I understand it, the tire that failed was the spare, which the tire store failed to replace. Is that right? Why were they driving on the spare? Did they have the bad luck to have the spare fail in the brief period between a flat tire and its repair, or were they driving around on the spare for a long time, which they shouldn’t have been?

]]>