Green Tractor Talk banner

141 - 160 of 160 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,986 Posts
I doubt the have made a Payment yet and weather they will. Deere usually always appeals judgements like this. That has always been there history So I am basing my statement on what Deere Has done in the Past. There not know for settling. Yes Insurance will cover this type of Lawsuit. But it depends On what the legal department head at Deere decides.. My oldest son use to see cases like this appealed all the time as he use to have this type of case In his previous Courtroom. He further pointed out this yesterday evening on this question I had asked. He said if Deere were going to settle they would not have taken it to court In the first place. He said this case will more than likely be appealed as you don't need as much to appeal a civil ruling as you would in a criminal ruling. He's a Appellate court Judge In District 4 currently But he use to hear Appeals in Civil matters in his Previous court
I'm not a lawyer and won't play one on GTT but I do know that Deere appealed the heck out of a case where they were infringing on the patent for planting units. That case took years to settle and Deere finally lost.

As I recall, they've been involved in several patent infringement case but the planter unit design involved very big money.

Treefarmer
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,007 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
I'm not a lawyer and won't play one on GTT but I do know that Deere appealed the heck out of a case where they were infringing on the patent for planting units. That case took years to settle and Deere finally lost.

As I recall, they've been involved in several patent infringement case but the planter unit design involved very big money.

Treefarmer
Deere has been suing AGCO since 2018 On the Planter Part of the case has been dismissed as of February Last year But I don't think it settled yet it's a 240 Billion dollar issue Deere use to own 44% of Precision Planting which Uncle Sam would not let Deere Buy and Then AGCO Bought Precision Planting and Came out with a Planter Deere said It Matches the Planter Technology it Produced with Precision In 2014
I know Caterpillar sued Deere On the Trac tractors for patent Infringement and lost as the Internal design was truly different
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
This all revolves around one important asset many people simply don't have and that is COMMON SENSE.

Operating a tractor with a loader can be dangerous if you are not careful no matter how much experience and training you have. I have 2 late model John Deere tractors and both have loaders and a John Deere ballast box mounted on the rear of each one loaded with gravel for ballast weight. I also have ROPS which I use and most of all I am strapped in with my seatbelt.

If my tractors were to ever roll over, I will not be hurled out of the drivers seat to be squashed like a bug. The roll bars are very well designed and I would bet money they would work great to protect me from impacting the ground.

I would have to estimate that the tractor operator in this article was not strapped in and was driving on uneven ground and gravity took its course and the tractor flipped. If the operator was strapped in and with the ROPS in the upright position, it would have been limited to a very scary event at most with the possibility of minor bumps and bruises.

I bought my 2 ballast boxes (one for each tractor) right away from the very beginning. It is only common sense that if you lift a reasonable heavy load in the bucket, you should have a load of equal weight in the rear to stabilize the machine.

In my opinion, John Deere was not at fault in any way shape or form. This was 100% operator negligence. Most people should stay off of heavy machinery and stick to a traditional push type lawn mower where they will stay safe or pay a professional to do the mowing for them. It is legal cases like these that cause the manufacturers to have to raise the prices of the equipment they sell to cover their losses in court. Now John Deere CUSTOMERS will be paying the freight for this legal lunacy. Nancy Pelosi was probably the judge!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Good point.
I have to wonder if a ballast box was sold as part of the tractor purchased. My dealer wont sell a tractor with FEL without a ballast box.
Smart Dealer, unlike P&K. I think P&K should have shared some responsibility for this. If for nothing else, for not giving an educational talk on the importance of ballast and getting a form signed off showing they were given the information. As far as a ballast box, I purchased a ballast box and went a little overboard with a Cat. 2 mount ballast box which the mounts had to be modified to work on a Cat. 1 tractor. For me it was all about what was in stock with the price being the same except I would have had to pay for shipping for the non-stock box, plus I ended up with twice the ballast capacity. The photos of that are in one of my albums for the ones that are curious to what I did.

I was in the market for a tractor (3039R) I bought a couple years ago when P&K bought out a dealer I was negotiating with for the tractor that I eventually bought somewhere else. I didn't care much for their business practices and since have only bought small stuff from them when it was a matter of convenience. For the most part, prices are pretty much the same between dealers so it's usually about trust and customer service which is getting harder to come by.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,563 Posts
This all revolves around one important asset many people simply don't have and that is COMMON SENSE.

Operating a tractor with a loader can be dangerous if you are not careful no matter how much experience and training you have. I have 2 late model John Deere tractors and both have loaders and a John Deere ballast box mounted on the rear of each one loaded with gravel for ballast weight. I also have ROPS which I use and most of all I am strapped in with my seatbelt.

If my tractors were to ever roll over, I will not be hurled out of the drivers seat to be squashed like a bug. The roll bars are very well designed and I would bet money they would work great to protect me from impacting the ground.

I would have to estimate that the tractor operator in this article was not strapped in and was driving on uneven ground and gravity took its course and the tractor flipped. If the operator was strapped in and with the ROPS in the upright position, it would have been limited to a very scary event at most with the possibility of minor bumps and bruises.

I bought my 2 ballast boxes (one for each tractor) right away from the very beginning. It is only common sense that if you lift a reasonable heavy load in the bucket, you should have a load of equal weight in the rear to stabilize the machine.

In my opinion, John Deere was not at fault in any way shape or form. This was 100% operator negligence. Most people should stay off of heavy machinery and stick to a traditional push type lawn mower where they will stay safe or pay a professional to do the mowing for them. It is legal cases like these that cause the manufacturers to have to raise the prices of the equipment they sell to cover their losses in court. Now John Deere CUSTOMERS will be paying the freight for this legal lunacy. Nancy Pelosi was probably the judge!
You’ve said a couple things that compelled me to comment.

ROPS and seat belt.

I’ve seen it a few times on our forum here where people say thay will not use the ROPS and seat belt because they think they can jump off in a roll over. A couple have even gone as far as removing their ROPS.

This is plainly lawn mower philosophy.

It’s really no different than our vehicles and seat belts. The cabin is made to protect you and you need to stay in it. Same with a tractor - you need to stay put in the seat as the seat area is made to protect you with the ROPS.

I didn’t read the article in depth so I don’t know if the seat belt was used. In a case like this, if in fact the operator didn’t have the seat belt on and ROPS up, how can Deere actually force anyone to use them? Same as in our vehicles. The only way you find out is when you are thrown out or off and you are crushed by your own vehicle/tractor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
Here's the thing I struggle with about this whole thing. I don't have my 120R loader manual in front of me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure it says I'm supposed to have a minimum of 800 pounds of rear ballast, AND filled tires, AND wheel weights. The quality of dealers vary a lot across the country. I love my dealer and he spec'd out a ballast box when I first asked him to run me a quote. I told him I was going to get a heavy hitch so he removed the ballast box. We had no conversation about filling tires or adding wheel weights or that because of Deere's specs I should be buying 16 of the 42 pound weights from him versus only 8. After getting home and reading the manual (and honestly...after reading a lot of information here on GTT) I checked into getting tires filled and I had a heck of a time finding a place (I live in Des Moines IA). My dealer doesn't fill tires. So if my dealer doesn't provide that service, then every single 2 series with loader that leaves the lot doesn't meet Deere's stated minimums for ballast.

I hate lawsuits stemming from accidents just as much as many of you. I agree that operators of equipment accept risk that they're using the machine correctly. I also think that even when you're using a machine correctly, uncontrollable things happen really fast.

It just seems weird to me that to meet my minimum rear ballast needs, I have to have my tires filled somewhere other than my dealer. And honestly, could I have even gotten 800 pounds into a ballast box? I don't fault Deere. I guess I'm just saying that if the "minimums" are really "minimums" to operate safely, then all dealers should be well informed to have that conversation. I have no knowledge of the conversation that happened with this gentlemen and his dealer, but from my limited experience I do think that this is an area where many John Deere dealers could do better.

Just my opinion. I'm not looking to offend or upset anyone. Sometimes tragedies are good reminders for us to all be careful and listen to that inner voice that sometimes tells us when we're starting to do something that might be a little sketchy.
My dealer contracts with a third party for tire filling and the price of my tractor included the cost of filling the rear tires. A ballast box was recommended when I priced out my tractor which I totally agreed with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,797 Posts
You’ve said a couple things that compelled me to comment.

ROPS and seat belt.

I’ve seen it a few times on our forum here where people say thay will not use the ROPS and seat belt because they think they can jump off in a roll over. A couple have even gone as far as removing their ROPS.

This is plainly lawn mower philosophy.

It’s really no different than our vehicles and seat belts. The cabin is made to protect you and you need to stay in it. Same with a tractor - you need to stay put in the seat as the seat area is made to protect you with the ROPS.

I didn’t read the article in depth so I don’t know if the seat belt was used. In a case like this, if in fact the operator didn’t have the seat belt on and ROPS up, how can Deere actually force anyone to use them? Same as in our vehicles. The only way you find out is when you are thrown out or off and you are crushed by your own vehicle/tractor.
No seatbelt used. The only ballast listed was a box blade, and the tractor went over 1.25 times, so there was a hill atleast close to where he drove. It doesn’t say about rops that I saw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
I didn't see anyone mention that the backhoe manual, at least for the 370B, says to remove all rear ballast and wheel weights. I would assume that includes fluid filled tires, maybe not as fluid wouldn't react the same on a tire as weights? I looked at the 260 and 260B and they say to follow the loader manual only the backhoe replaces 3-pt ballast...the manuals refer to 3-pt, wheel weights and fluid separately.
725994


Tractors should be included in high school physics, just like taxes should be in math classes/economics😁.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,046 Posts
If you have insurance it’s not always your choice to sue. When the insurance policy pays out they have the right to sue on your behalf. You are the listed party weather you like it or not.
Exactly...If you pay insurance, when and if you are sued, they are suing your insurance company, and they are the ones that make the decisions, not you. In fact, they won't even ask you!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,659 Posts
Exactly...If you pay insurance, when and if you are sued, they are suing your insurance company, and they are the ones that make the decisions, not you. In fact, they won't even ask you!!
With a individual and car/Homeowner Insurance ect that is usually correct

But at these corporate level companies it is not just up to the insurance company and there not just suing Deere's insurace company in this case. Now the Insurance will pay if after all appeals it's decided Deere will pay. But there not making the decions on there own weather to pay or appeal. It usually a Joint legal team from insurance and Deere's legal department which includeds( outside law firm)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
Reminds me of ralph nader and w
Sad story for sure, but just more proof that properly ballasting our tractors is important. Even though the wife "won" the suite, she still lost her husband.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, a Payne County jury awarded a Stillwater woman $5 million in a civil suit that followed her husband's death in a tractor accident.

The jury found Deere & Company, the manufacturer of John Deere tractors, to be responsible for the May 25, 2014, death of James Beall, age 38, of Stillwater, when the tractor he was driving rolled over, trapping him underneath. Shylah Beall, his widow, was represented by Smolen Law, a Tulsa firm.

The case involved a John Deere 3038 E Compact Utility Tractor with a 305 front loader that was sold to the Bealls by P&K Equipment, Inc., of Stillwater. The tractor and an optional front loader were assembled at the Deere plant in Georgia and then shipped to P&K Equipment.


Shylah Beall's suit claimed that the tractor was unsafe and had not been properly configured by either the factory or the dealership before she and her husband took delivery. Throughout the lawsuit, Deere denied the accusations.

Beall's attorneys said Deere’s manufacturing failed to add additional weight to the rear of the tractor to counterbalance the almost 700-pound front-end loader, before it left the Deere plant in Georgia. The weight was also not added at the local dealership.

Representatives of Deere & Company said the tractor was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and suggested Beall may not have been wearing his seatbelt.

During the trial, the representative for Deere & Company admitted that ballast is supposed to be added to the rear and tires of the tractor. In the instruction manual it said, "To prevent death or bodily injury from tractor loader roll-over, the required amount of ballast must be added to the tractor."

The proper ballast wasn’t added before Beall bought the tractor, and Beall's attorneys argued that evidence shown during the trial suggested that if the weight had been added as recommended, the tractor wouldn’t have rolled over.

Carlton Hearn, a product safety engineer for Deere & Company, testitfied that the tractor was supposed to be configured ready for use at the dealership, and there is a checklist dealers go through to ensure a tractor is ready for use.

Among the checklist items was the installation of ballast to to prevent rollover and injury. At first, it seemed the Hearn was suggesting that it would be up to the consumer to do whatever needed to be done with the tractor, according to a transcript provided to the News Press by Smolen Law.

"So let me ask you this, so when James and his dad, Clyde, showed up to P&K and they – and he had this dream of having his own business and he had this 16-acre property that he needs help mowing," attorney Donald Smolen asked. "You think that they should have thought to themselves, 'Hey, even though I'm buying this thing brand new from John Deere and it's come directly from the factory all set up, I bet it's in an unreasonably safe condition and that I need to go through and make sure that they did everything they are supposed to. Is that the way that Deere sells its equipment?'"

"I'm sorry. What way?" the rep asked.

"Well, you've got here that in order for this tractor to be safe, and properly weighted, and properly ballasted there are certain things that have to be done to the tractor when used with a loader right?," Smolen replied. "I mean, that's what we have been talking about. And these things that are listed, the consumer, James Beall, Clyde Beall, me whoever, the consumer can't even do that, they can't even istall the real tire weights according to Deere, right?"
"It's recommended that they are done by a Deere dealership," Hearn replied.
On Jan. 16, a Payne County jury found after 27 minutes of deliberation that "by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant, Deere & Company, acted in reckless disregard for the rights of others." They awarded Shylah Beall $3 million in actual compensatory damages and $2 million in punitive damages.
In a statement released Thursday, Shylah Beall said that her main goal was to hold the company accountable and make sure nothing like this happens in the future.
“I don’t want James’ death to be in vain,” she said. “I want proper safety protocols followed in the future.”
Attorney Donald E. Smolen, II, said the compensation will help Shylah raise her young son, who is now left without a father.
“No amount of money will take the place of a loving husband and father, but these funds can help Shylah and her family in other ways,” he said. “Our greatest hope is we can prevent this from happening to another family. We are pleased the jury decided in our favor.”
This reminds me of what ralph nader did to the aito industry. Some of you may be old enough to remember?
A course was set up for passenger cars to negotiate in order to be safe on the roads but certain special purpose vehicles were unable to negotiate the course at the required speed without chance of rolling over. Because of this those vehilces had to be redisigned as street vehicles destroying their abilities in the dirt where they were designed to operate. Is this the future for tractors? Low rider tractors extra wide with weight added and out riggers to prevent rollover?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,797 Posts
Exactly...If you pay insurance, when and if you are sued, they are suing your insurance company, and they are the ones that make the decisions, not you. In fact, they won't even ask you!!
In my state and with my policies I have the right to hire my own lawyer. Insurance company interests do not always equal those of the policy holder. A company can say the policy holder is liable, but we are not responsible as that circumstance isn’t covered, so that why you can get your own lawyer and speak for yourself.

What I said was if the insurance company pays, they can sue the other party to recover their costs on you behalf. There is boatload of caselaw showing an insurance company will kick the policy holder under the bus so the judgement doesn’t come out of their pocket.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,046 Posts
In my state and with my policies I have the right to hire my own lawyer. Insurance company interests do not always equal those of the policy holder. A company can say the policy holder is liable, but we are not responsible as that circumstance isn’t covered, so that why you can get your own lawyer and speak for yourself.

What I said was if the insurance company pays, they can sue the other party to recover their costs on you behalf. There is boatload of caselaw showing an insurance company will kick the policy holder under the bus so the judgement doesn’t come out of their pocket.
You pretty much have that right in many states, but be careful, not all auto insurance law is the same, and even within the same state, tort rights can be limited if the insured chooses a limited tort option with their insurance company. Many insured people have found out the hard way when they were forced to take a settlement on a claim without the ability to sue the other party simply because they chose to get the lower insurance rate. If you chose limited tort on your insurance policy, you limit yours, and probably anyone in your households, ability to sue, even outside of your insurance limits in many states.

Tort options under PA Auto Insurance:
A. "Limited Tort" Option--The laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania give you the right to choose a form of insurance that limits your right and the right of members of your household to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers. Under this form of insurance, you and other household members covered under this policy may seek recovery for all medical and other out-of-pocket expenses, but not for pain and suffering or other non-monetary damages unless the injuries suffered fall within the definition of "serious injury" as set forth in the policy or unless one of several other exceptions noted in the policy applies.

B. "Full Tort" Option--The laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also give you the right to choose a form of insurance under which you maintain an unrestricted right for you and the members of your household to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers. Under this form of insurance, you and other household members covered under this policy may seek recovery for all medical and other out-of-pocket expenses and may also seek financial compensation for pain and suffering and other non-monetary damages as a result of injuries caused by other drivers.

Many people read this law and do not understand what it restricts. If you select "limited tort", this restricts your ability to sue an at fault drivers insurance company, and your own insurance company, even if you, or your family members, are a passenger in someone else's vehicle.

PA also has minimum amounts of insurance coverage that are required by vehicle owners. These minimums are very low based on today's medical and vehicle repair costs so it is very possible that they at fault driver will not even have enough insurance to cover damages.

In PA, suppose you are involved in an accident and the at fault driver has the minimum coverage. Your doctor bills and vehicle repair cost exceeds his insured amounts. Your own insurance will pick up the amounts due for your injuries and repair costs, but if you selected limited tort, you will have no legal right to sue for anything outside what your insurance is obligated to pay based on the law.

So many people select this limited tort option on their vehicle insurance in PA because it is much cheaper. Then when the accident happens, they find out the hard way that they have signed away their legal right to sue for recovery.

So, be sure you know that you know. Don't assume you know the laws pertaining to your insurance. Ask you insurance agent really hard questions pertaining to these types of tort options.

That said, you cannot confuse automobile, homeowners, workers compensation or even general liability insurance claims, with product liability civil lawsuits. The process is so much different.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
I looked at my brothers 3038E and there is a decal on the left hand loader mount about ballast, rops/seat belt. Do we get a seat belt warning light on the instrument cluster or a seat belt/rops postion interlock like the hated 1974 seat belt interlock on cars.
IMG_20200202_093951189.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
so sad for the loss, he did not take the time to figure out what the tractor could and could not do,many cranes ,payloaders and tractors of all sizes and price have rolled over ,with or without correct ballast ,without ballast the owner also increases mechanical failure ,color or size does not matter ,my 2 tractors with loaders ,a small one and big one have correct ballast beyond 3 point hitch arms ,I will not operate either one without it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,008 Posts
You pretty much have that right in many states, but be careful, not all auto insurance law is the same, and even within the same state, tort rights can be limited if the insured chooses a limited tort option with their insurance company. Many insured people have found out the hard way when they were forced to take a settlement on a claim without the ability to sue the other party simply because they chose to get the lower insurance rate. If you chose limited tort on your insurance policy, you limit yours, and probably anyone in your households, ability to sue, even outside of your insurance limits in many states.

Tort options under PA Auto Insurance:
A. "Limited Tort" Option--The laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania give you the right to choose a form of insurance that limits your right and the right of members of your household to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers. Under this form of insurance, you and other household members covered under this policy may seek recovery for all medical and other out-of-pocket expenses, but not for pain and suffering or other non-monetary damages unless the injuries suffered fall within the definition of "serious injury" as set forth in the policy or unless one of several other exceptions noted in the policy applies.

B. "Full Tort" Option--The laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also give you the right to choose a form of insurance under which you maintain an unrestricted right for you and the members of your household to seek financial compensation for injuries caused by other drivers. Under this form of insurance, you and other household members covered under this policy may seek recovery for all medical and other out-of-pocket expenses and may also seek financial compensation for pain and suffering and other non-monetary damages as a result of injuries caused by other drivers.

Many people read this law and do not understand what it restricts. If you select "limited tort", this restricts your ability to sue an at fault drivers insurance company, and your own insurance company, even if you, or your family members, are a passenger in someone else's vehicle.

PA also has minimum amounts of insurance coverage that are required by vehicle owners. These minimums are very low based on today's medical and vehicle repair costs so it is very possible that they at fault driver will not even have enough insurance to cover damages.

In PA, suppose you are involved in an accident and the at fault driver has the minimum coverage. Your doctor bills and vehicle repair cost exceeds his insured amounts. Your own insurance will pick up the amounts due for your injuries and repair costs, but if you selected limited tort, you will have no legal right to sue for anything outside what your insurance is obligated to pay based on the law.

So many people select this limited tort option on their vehicle insurance in PA because it is much cheaper. Then when the accident happens, they find out the hard way that they have signed away their legal right to sue for recovery.

So, be sure you know that you know. Don't assume you know the laws pertaining to your insurance. Ask you insurance agent really hard questions pertaining to these types of tort options.

That said, you cannot confuse automobile, homeowners, workers compensation or even general liability insurance claims, with product liability civil lawsuits. The process is so much different.
I never heard of such a thing in either California or Oregon the two states i have vehicles insured in. Thanks for the info one can never be to careful
 
141 - 160 of 160 Posts
Top