Ford SA is going to recall the Ford Kuga.
CEO Jeffrey Nemeth will make the announcement this afternoon at a media conference‚ in conjunction with the National Consumer Commission (NCC), Timeslive says.
The recall was confirmed by Rod Montano‚ a lawyer for family of Kuga fire victim Reshall Jimmy.
“In a discussion with the NCC we were informed by lawyers for the commission that there would be a recall on the 2012 to 2014 Kuga models‚” he said.
The details of the recall were unclear.
Earlier on Monday, the Jimmy family — through Montano — handed over dozens of complaints from Kuga owners whose vehicles had caught fire, to the NCC.
The handover is part of the start of a class-action case against Ford‚ which the family is leading.
Since 2014‚ Ford has known of the Kuga’s potentially deadly safety flaw‚ but has done nothing to address the matter. The company was informed over the past two years by various insurance companies about the flaws through investigations by their forensic investigators.
Jimmy’s sister‚ Renisha Jimmy, described the announcement as a bitter-sweet victory.
“We have only just won the first leg of the battle with Ford. While we have ensured a recall is done‚ we still have a long fight ahead with Ford‚ which is by no means over. We are determined to expose the truth‚ which is that Ford has hidden the fact that their cars burn because of manufacturing faults.”
The recall comes after a high-level meeting was held on Friday between senior Ford executives and NCC lawyers.
Motor industry ombud Johan van Vreden on Monday called for urgent action.
“Ford must act — now. This is a first for me in my 16 years as ombudsman‚” he said. “One or two vehicles in the same model range catching fire is not unusual‚ but almost 50 … it’s crazy‚ especially in a small market like ours.”
Regardless of the outcome of the investigation into the cause of the Ford Kuga fire in which Jimmy was killed in December 2015‚ Van Vreden said‚ the other 46 Kuga fires all appear to have started in the engine compartment‚ requiring Ford to take immediate “appropriate action” within the recall policies of Ford and the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).
“I hope that at today’s press conference they reveal very clearly what they propose to do.”
Types of recall
There are different forms of recall in the motor industry. A service recall is ordered in the case of an issue that is not what the industry terms safety critical‚ and is carried out during a routine service‚ often without the owner’s knowledge.
But a safety recall‚ due to what the industry terms a “safety critical” issue such as dozens of vehicles catching alight — is clearly far more serious.
It is undertaken voluntarily by the manufacturer or as a result of being forced to by an authority such as the NCC.
The manufacturer undertakes the responsibility and total cost of fixing the problem‚ replacing the vehicle or buying it back‚ depending on the issue and the circumstances.
What does the law say?
“The CPA is clear‚ in terms of section 61, that there is strict liability for any damage or harm caused by a product that is unsafe when supplied or that has an inherent hazard or a defect‚” CPA and product liability specialist attorney Janusz Luterek says.
“This liability extends beyond replacement of the vehicle to any harm or damage caused and economic loss suffered by the owner‚ passengers‚ family or potentially even other members of the public or rescue services who are affected by it.
“These claims could be very large indeed and include loss of income in the case of injury and loss of support in the case of a death.
“A burning Kuga could also lead to a larger fire in a mall or in dense traffic causing untold harm and exposing Ford to huge liability.”
The CPA also provides for class-action lawsuits‚ Luterek said.
Montano‚ who represents the owners of most of the Kugas that have caught fire‚ said such a class action was indeed being planned.
On Monday morning‚ Montano and Renisha Jimmy tried to hand over written complaints from the 46 Kuga fire victims at the offices of the NCC‚ but were denied access and ordered off the property by commission spokesperson Trevor Hattingh.
Hattingh said this was simply because they had not made an appointment.
The complainants are urging the NCC to recall the 1.6l Kuga‚ as a precursor to lodging a civil claim against the company as a class action.
Luterek said there may also be both criminal and civil liability for the directors and other officers of Ford SA under the Companies Act of 2013‚ “especially where they have intentionally or negligently failed to recall a vehicle that has been shown to be a hazard and in which at least one person has already died”.
“What is more alarming is the disdain Ford SA has for South Africans — whereas Ford in the US recalled the Ford Escape (Kuga in SA) due to fire risk after 13 fires with no injuries‚ it fails to do the same here in the face of 45 fires and one death.”
The Ford Pinto scandal
For many‚ the Ford Kuga issue brings to mind a particularly scandalous chapter of Ford’s history — that of the Ford Pinto in the late 1970s.
Due to the poor design of the fuel tank‚ the car — the biggest selling sub-compact car in the US at the time — tended to burst into flames when crashed into from behind.
It emerged in civil trials that Ford waited eight years to re-design the fuel tank because its internal “cost-benefit analysis” — which placed a dollar value on human life — said it was not profitable to make the changes sooner. Twenty-seven people died in Pinto fires.
In September 1978, a month after two teenagers died in a Pinto fire‚ Ford finally issued a recall for 1.5-million 1971-76 Pinto sedans and Runabouts‚ plus all similar 1975-76 Mercury Bobcats‚ for a safety repair.
While Ford was acquitted of criminal charges‚ it lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing “the barbecue that seats four”.
In his book titled Talking Straight‚ former Ford executive Lee Iacocca wrote: “Clamming up is what we did at Ford in the late 70s when we were bombarded with suits over the Pinto‚ which was involved in a lot of gas tank fires.
“The suits might have bankrupted the company‚ so we kept our mouths shut for fear of saying anything that just one jury might have construed as an admission of guilt. Winning in court was our top priority; nothing else mattered,” Iacocca wrote. “And of course‚ our silence added to all the suspicions people had about us and the car.”
Explanations demanded
In December‚ the commission summoned Ford’s top management to appear before it to explain what the company was doing to investigate and stop the fires.
Ford was given until February 28 to complete its investigation and report back to the commission.
For months Ford has been under intense pressure over its Kuga‚ with customers asking why the vehicle manufacturer has not recalled the car.
To date 48 Kuga’s have caught fire in SA‚ 11 in January alone. Jimmy died in December 2015 when he was trapped in his burning Kuga while on holiday in the Wilderness‚ Western Cape.
Since then his family have been fighting a bitter war with Ford to get the company to take responsibility for his death.
While Ford claims that Jimmy’s car caught alight in the rear‚ the family, through private forensic and fire investigators‚ have established that the fire started with the car’s electronic wiring system behind the dashboard on the passenger side of the vehicle.
Police‚ and Jimmy’s insurance company’s forensic investigators‚ came to the same conclusion as those made by fire experts hired by the Jimmy family.
TMG Digital/The Times
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.