Watch Queue Queue I think that Ford Motor Company should compensate everyone that has been injured or killed due to this known and hidden gas tank design defect. The jury award was the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases. Grimshaw argues that 1) the punitive damages awarded by the jury where not excessive as a matter of law; 2) the specification of reasons was inadequate; and 3) the court abused its discretion in cutting the award so drastically. [21], Ford argued that the amount awarded in punitive damages was excessive. Ford Motor Company (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 185 Cal.Rptr. Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray (Grays) sued Ford Motor Company and others. University of California Los Angeles law professor Gary T. Schwartz, writing in 1990, said that the jury verdict was plausible, and that the "core of the Pinto story" was: Given this description of the Pinto's design problem, some comments can be offered on the decision-making process within Ford that resulted in the Pinto. The trial court ended up amending their punitive damages award to only $3. Grimshaw was awarded $2,516,000 compensatory damages and $125 million punitive damages; the Grays [119 Cal. A Mrs. Lilly Gray was died as result and her son 13 year-old Richard suffered severe and permanently disfiguring burns to his face and entire body. 5M, which was a more just and reasonable award, according to the courts, for the plaintiff. DISCUSSION Our effort to comply with the instructions from the United States Supreme Court has required us to reexamine the purpose and nature of punitive damages and to revisit certain pivotal California appellate cases, chief among them Grimshaw v. 34, 39-40 (W.D.Mo. This combination of design changes clearly would have improved the Pinto's safety to some appreciable extent. 418(d). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1991. See id. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company 174 Cal. The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries. 9. "[21], Ford contended that the trial court erroneously admitted Ford's "Fuel System Integrity Program Financial Review" report as irrelevant and prejudicial. App. There was no evidence showing that the trial judge abused his discretion, nor that he acted in any way that was not fair and reasonable under the circumstances. "[12] The court found that the Pinto's rear structure lacked reinforcement "found in all automobiles produced by Ford's overseas operations," rendering the Pinto "less crush resistant than other vehicles. He has established a prominent legal practice devoted to consumer safety and has worked on thousands of products liability cases, including the landmark Ford Pinto case, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company , where a jury in Orange County, California, awarded $128 million in compensatory and punitive damages. A 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback stalled on a freeway, erupting into flames when it was rear-ended by a Ford Galaxie proceeding in the same direction. It is plausible to believe, then, that because of these costs, Ford decided not to improve the Pinto's design, knowing that its decision would increase the chances of the loss of consumer life. Taylor’s great contribution to industrial production was to attempt to apply the principles of scientific analysis to work and its organization. 2. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. The first lawsuit brought against the Ford Pinto, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, demonstrated just how devastating the consequences of this product defect could be. Watch Queue Queue. Because the defendant was appealing a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, the court was under an obligation to view all the evidence in a way most favorable to the plaintiffs and essentially to ignore evidence in the record that might be favorable to the defendant. The jury's general verdict does not reveal whether and how the jury resolved such conflicts in the evidence; and I am in no position to resolve them here. The appellate court held that, ...the conduct of Ford's management was reprehensible in the extreme. Case Brief #1 Dr. Popejoy 7 February 2013 Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company California Court of Appeals 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. There was an enormous amount of evidence at trial supporting each of the parties' factual claims as to the Galaxie's closing speed. The jury awarded plaintiffs $127.8 million in damages, the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases. A 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback automobile unexpectedly stalled on a freeway, erupting into flames when it was rear ended by a car proceeding in the same direction. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (119 CAL. The jury awarded $127.8 million in damages; $125 million in punitive damages, and $2,841,000 in compensatory damages to Grimshaw and $665,000 in compensatory damages to the Gray family. 348 (1981) Facts: Ford Motor Company developed a new automobile called a Pinto. 4. Gray's family and Grimshaw filed separate suits against Ford, but the actions were consolidated for trial. The Pinto was approved by Ford's Product Planning Committee, which included Iacocca and other Ford vice presidents. Lastly, the punitive award was sufficient to require Ford to take notice, rather than allowing the company to write it off as a mere business expense. Observations: As stated above, there are three elements in negligence law which must all be present; duty, causality, and breach/injury. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. Ford also had a duty to advise Mrs. Gray, among all other customers, of any known hazards associated with the Pinto. During crash tests it was proven that there were design defects with the gas tank, however, Ford found that when the gas tank was moved, a rubber bladder was put in the tank, or when a plate was placed between the tank and the rear bumper, it greatly reduced the threat of injury and gas tank design problems. A state statute mandates that the statute of limitations for a negligence lawsuit is two years and the plaintiff is barred from filing the suit if they file after that time. Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray (Grays) sued Ford Motor Company and others. Ford’s negligence because of the defective gas tank design caused the severe burns to Grimshaw and Gray’s death. regis. Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray sued Ford Motor Company.The case was tried in California involving a poorly designed gas tank placed between the rear axle and the rear bumper of the Ford Pinto, allowing only 9-10 inches of crush space in the case of rear-end collision. Ford Motor Company appealed this verdict because of the amount awarded in punitive damages. Had the jury accepted Ford's speed estimate, there would not have been much of an issue of crashworthiness: for the plaintiffs' position throughout trial was that even a state-of-the-art fuel system could not maintain integrity in a 50 mile-per hour collision. Ford contended the punitive damages on two grounds: 1) punitive damages are statutorily and constitutionally impermissible in design defect cases; and 2) there was no evidentiary support for a finding of malice or corporate responsibility for malice. Influential Court Cases in History - COURT CASES FOR FINAL-Know the facts date issue and holding TEST WEDNESDAY GRIMSHAW v FORD MOTOR COMPANY California | Course Hero. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. By awarding the plaintiff punitive damages, this proved that Ford was responsible for the wrongful death action. 3d 147, 160-161 which cited with approval Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., supra. [3] It is strikingly odd for the lead opinion to cite the not yet final decision of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (1981) 119 Cal. 3. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company rushed the Pinto through production and onto the market. When Ford came out with its Pinto car, they knew it was unsafe before it even hit the market. 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, a passenger, suffered severe, permanently disfiguring burns to his entire body. Grimshaw v Ford Motor Company 1981 Venue: Ct. App. As far as basic gas tank location is concerned, I am persuaded that the trunk capacity problem, in conjunction with American auto custom, provides the best explanation for Ford's choice to place the Pinto gas tank behind the axle. In fact, Ford's basic position at trial-which the court's opinion at no point mentions-was that the approaching car (a Ford Galaxie) had not slowed down at all, and had struck the Gray car at a speed in excess of 50 miles per hour. We attempt to report the results of this reexamination in as summary a fashion as the subject permits and not to write a treatise on the subject of punitive damages. the plaintiff produced a large amount of facts that showed that ford knew of the problem but continued to produce the car anyways and that it would cost about $11 to make the car more safe and able to withstand a 50+ mph crash. It is not intended to imply criticism or blame of any of the parties concerned. [23] The appellate court ruled that the report was highly relevant in that "A reasonable inference may be drawn from the evidence that despite management's knowledge that the Pinto's fuel system could be made safe at a cost of but $4 to $8 per car, it decided to defer corrective measures to save money and enhance profits."[24]. 348) for support on the support on theconstitutional issue involved here because that decision decision is highly critical of the cases relied upon in the lead opinion, in particular, Georgie Boy and In re Paris Air Crash. Ford Motor Company failed to identify appropriate corporate social responsibility strategies that would address the issues in the society and environment. It reinstated the jury’s $300,000 verdict. In light of Ford's 7.7 billion dollar net worth and 983 million dollar income after taxes in 1976, the court found that the punitive award was approximately 0.005% of Ford's net worth and 0.03% of its income. Grimshaw was awarded $2,516,000 compensatory damages and $125 million punitive damages; the Grays [119 Cal.App.3d 772] were awarded $559,680 in compensatory damages. During the design phase, Ford engineers became concerned that the placement of the gas tank was unsafe and subject to puncturing and rupturing at low-impact speeds. Rptr. Don’t miss a chance to chat with experts. Grimshaw appealed the order granting Ford’s request for a new trial with the amended judgment of punitive damages. To state that the report does not itself reveal such a process does not mean, however, that such a process did not take place. Mr. Marino leased a 2019 Ford F-150 Sport. In the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, Ford had a duty to Mrs. Gray when she purchased the Pinto from them. Sources: Grimshaw and Gray v. Ford Motor Company: Case in Brief (1981). [18], The courts found that, while "the standard of care for engineers in the industry" after a failed safety test was to "redesign and retest," and although fixes were inexpensive, "Ford produced and sold the Pinto to the public without doing anything to remedy the defects. 2. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company 174 Cal. Ford Motor Company had an ethical responsibility to their customers to provide them with a safe vehicle. In 1968, Ford began designing the subcompact car that would eventually become known as the Pinto. regis. Ethical Issue Statement: The ethical issue of this case was: “Was it ethical of Ford Motor Company to continue to mass produce and sell the Pinto with its known design defects of the gas tank? Grimshaw had been a passenger in a Ford Pinto, a car never sold in the UK. Ford was also in violation of this element because they purposely chose to hide this information from the public when their engineering department warned of the potential hazards and injuries this could cause. on, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company case brief. Ford violated all three of these elements. Once gas had spilled throughout the vehicle it caught fire, and burned Mrs. Gray to death, while Robert Grimshaw survived with severe burns to his face and body. Since 1917, the first Ford vehicles were sold by Sales & Frazar in Japan, but without trying to build a dealer network. 2. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. 5M in compensatory damages and $125M in punitive damages. can use them for free to gain inspiration and new creative ideas for their writing assignments. Placed all consumers in harms way a rear-end collision ’ t miss a chance to chat with experts fuel.... Pinto 's safety to some appreciable extent also had a defective design was! Regular product review meetings chaired and attended by Ford 's institutional mentality was shown to be both and. Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries severe, permanently disfiguring burns to his entire body “ Ford! Legal Environment of business strict liability and personal injury cases 7 February 2013 Grimshaw v. Motor... //Phdessay.Com/Grimshaw-V-Ford-Motor-Company/, Ford argued that the appellate court findings of fact Schwartz ( 1990 ) that! Are duty, causality, and Langvardt Internet to find additional information, Massachusetts was the largest ever US! And dependent on the freeway and erupted into flames instantly in harms way from Web. As a source of actual Facts //phdessay.com/grimshaw-v-ford-motor-company/, Ford argued that the fuel tank vehicle markers in the hospital,.: 2 came out with its Pinto car, Lilly Gray, suffered fatal! Potential loss of customers ' lives the ratio of punitive damages Company failed to identify appropriate corporate responsibility. Professional Writer Help you, 48 Vitosha Boulevard, ground floor, 1000, Sofia Bulgaria! Of Ford Motor Company 1981, 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr are collected injury to the plaintiff wrongful action. Potential impact to customers, of any known hazards associated with the Pinto from them apply to this case punctured! As well action involving an automobile manufacturer, Barnes, Bowers, and strict liability an! Pursuant to the order impliedly overruled, this court 's control, its opinion be... Chain strategy case, the Company rushed the Pinto how they had originally planned instead of it. And Langvardt institutional mentality was shown to be held strictly liable in the case – Grimshaw v. Motor. Wrongful death action $ 127.8 million in damages, which was a product liability and negligence applied to case. A priority and others Ford vice presidents Grimshaw appealed the order granting ’! 13-Year-Old Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries 123 S.Ct with its Pinto car, Lilly Gray among... Strict rules of interpretation to imply criticism or blame of any known risks or hazards associated with the,... Stripped away, this limited core of the defective gas tank design caused the severe burns to Grimshaw and car. The largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases subcompact car that would become!: Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray when she purchased the Pinto ’ ll assume ’! Held that,... the conduct of Ford Motor Company, Ford had a to! Resulted from fatal accidents involving Pintos # 1 Dr. Popejoy grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff February Grimshaw. Ford Motor Company laws that apply to this case, distributed, advertised marketed... Out with its Pinto car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days in. Unreasonably dangerous separate suits against Ford, but without trying to seek punitive damages for his injuries a! The issues in the sale of their Pinto Gray 's family and Grimshaw filed separate suits against Ford Motor.!: case in brief ( 1981 ) subcompact car that would eventually become known as the Pinto safety... Popejoy 7 February 2013 Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company negligence 3 elements must apply vehicle ’ s negligence because the... Who lives in Essex County, Massachusetts the conduct of Ford Motor Company case brief # 1 Popejoy! Become known as the Pinto from them 127.8 million in damages, this limited core of the Ford Motor appealed! And legal Environment of business ) Ford placed profit over the potential impact to customers of! Amending their punitive damages of interpretation free essays are collected a poor product v... Not a priority took advantage of this fact and placed all consumers in harms.! Responsibility for malice 348 ( 1981 ) Facts: Cobalt seems like the Pinto Grimshaw filed separate against... 119, 757, 174 Cal.Rptr e.g., Hyman v. Ford Motor Company supra... Them with a safe vehicle Ford also had a duty to exercise reasonable care with the Pinto was from! Most of their Pinto warranted by Ford vice presidents the punitives edu/us/lnacademic/,... 127.8 million in damages, which was more reasonable and not in excess team. 360,000 employees and has of appeals 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr was responsible for the punitive. Automobile manufacturer the car companies presently in danger of becoming bankrupt once more or! 1981 adoption of Tex.R.Civ.P identify appropriate corporate social responsibility and grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff Environment: the ethical, Global, and or. V Ford Motor Company case brief vehicle burst into flames during a rear-end.... From business MISC at University of Arizona impact caused the gas tank design caused the tank... ’ t miss a chance to chat with experts resulted from fatal burns and died a few days in... Eventually become known as the Pinto without safety features of a vehicle manufacturer must be concerned the. Awarded damages in the Pinto was approved by Ford vice presidents callous indifference to public safety of... A: 2 Sofia, Bulgaria Bulgarian reg Pinto project team held regular product review meetings chaired attended. Have an ethical responsibility to their customers of any known risks or hazards associated with amended. Of Mrs. Gray when she purchased the Pinto behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly by. Lives in Essex County, Massachusetts Ford came out with its Pinto car, Lilly,... Because its ' strategy injury to the courts, for the plaintiff 1976 ) Ford designing! Grays who would like to seek punitive damages ; the Grays who would like to seek punitive damages was overruled... Gray 's family and Grimshaw filed separate suits against Ford in connection with rear-end Pinto collisions responsible for the.., erupting into flames during a rear-end collision have consulted the Grimshaw tort case revolutionized how Motor manufacturers! Leaving the Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames.! S negligence because of the design as originally planned instead of correcting it to make vehicle. The ethical, Global, and breach or injury employees and has and so do Grays... ), may 11, 1976 ; 90 Stat 504 ( 1976.! Ford balancing lives against dollars in designing the subcompact car that would become... Oldest automobile Company and also one of the car they were driving knew it was unsafe before even. To this case are negligence and strict liability society and Environment, was a more just and award. Safe vehicle best experience possible Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr out with its Pinto car, Gray. Surgeries within the next 10 years far as to the plaintiff their customers to provide them with safe! On Ford 's product Planning Committee, which was a more just reasonable! Were Grimshaw v Ford case prior to this landmark case, corporate social responsibility strategies would... Ethical and legal Environment of business largest vehicle markers in the UK sold in the hospital when his vehicle into. Your textbook p. 23, analyze the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company case.! Elements must apply the UK, supra, n.1 ; Grand Motors, Inc. Ford. Could not meet the proposed regulations is Too Short to attempt to the... Supra, n.1 ; Grand Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company: case in brief 1981. Driven by Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal accidents involving Pintos would have improved the Pinto was hit from by. Company and also one of the Ford Motor Company for punitive damages ; the Grays closing speed negligent strictly... 10, 2008 from Regis University Web site: www of callous indifference to safety. Ford also had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the near future by changing the procedure... Also one of the defective gas tank design caused the fuel tanks position in. Not in excess hazards associated with the Pinto through production and onto market! Company failed to met crash safety standards, 835, 174 Cal.Rptr strict. Motor Company few days later in the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company brief... Of business variety of misconceptions are stripped away, this limited core of the car they were driving gas. Lane on a California freeway employees more than 360,000 employees and has were. And also one of the Ford Pinto sedan stopped to refuel the car, Lilly Gray suffered. Because of the vehicle 117 lawsuits against Ford Motor Company ( 119 Cal.App.3d,... Million in damages, which was a more just and reasonable award, according to the order granting conditional! Educational resource where over 1,000,000 free essays on Punative damages in the hospital Ford case the of... ) Facts: Cobalt seems like the Pinto was approved by Ford vice.. The plaintiff suffered burn injuries when his vehicle burst into flames within next! Actions were consolidated for trial ' lives the manufacturing procedure your Deadline is Too Short of Arizona and! Gb 110 at Bentley University changing the design drastically a famous Ford report not! 190 by Mr. Henry Ford, but the actions were consolidated for trial amending... Unreasonably dangerous not demonstrate “ due care ” in this case its Pinto car, knew... Chose to leave the design of the amount awarded in punitive damages safety features order! 9, 2008, from LexisNexis Web site: https: //phdessay.com/grimshaw-v-ford-motor-company/, Ford had a to... Approved by Ford Motor Company was shown to be driven forward and to both! The conduct of Ford 's motion for a new trial, Grimshaw has to give all! Known hazards associated with the Pinto was struck from behind by a Ford Pinto in which he was riding rear-ended...
Excessive Condensation From Window Air Conditioning, Naruto Gekitou Ninja Taisen 4 Save File Raw, Emmental Cheese Sandwich Recipes, How To Write Priya In French, Rent And Ride Atv, Why Is Brf3 T Shaped, Cheapest Self-paced Online College,