grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff

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. Legal Analysis Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company Facts In 1972 a Ford Pinto, purchased six months prior, unexpectedly stalled on the freeway in California. edu/us/lnacademic/ Mallor, Jane P. , Barnes, Bowers, and Langvardt. 2014). 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. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 119 Cal. Let Professional Writer Help You, 48 Vitosha Boulevard, ground floor, 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria Bulgarian reg. To state that the report does not itself reveal such a process does not mean, however, that such a process did not take place. The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries. 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. In: Huber PW, Litan RE, eds. 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. Ford breached every element of the negligence law from their duty to the customer, causality linking them to the plaintiffs injuries, and injury to their customers, to breaching every principle of strict liability since they knowingly sold a product that was unreasonably dangerous and the jury found that Ford’s actions and their design defect’s of the Pinto caused the death and injuries to Mrs. Gray and Robert Grimshaw. He placed great emphasis upon measurement and time and. Lily Gray and 13-year old Richard Grimshaw were traveling in a Ford Pinto when the vehicle was struck by another car, at the relatively low speed of 30 miles per hour. Alternatively, they assert that if not already impliedly overruled, this court should now expressly overrule that decision. They are duty, causality, and breach or injury. Sources: Grimshaw and Gray v. Ford Motor Company: Case in Brief (1981). Grimshaw was awarded $2,516,000 compensatory damages and $125 million punitive damages; the Grays. '"[26] In Taylor v. Superior Court, the California Superior Court held that a conscious disregard of the safety of others is sufficient to meet the animus malus required for punitive damages awards, adding: "In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences." 348) was a personal injury tort case decided in Orange County California in February 1978 and affirmed by a California appellate court in May 1981. 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, a passenger, suffered severe, permanently disfiguring burns to his entire body. 348 Using your textbook p. 23, analyze the case – Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company. I would recommend that after this case was settled, that Ford Motor Company recall all Pinto’s across the nation and fit them with rubber bladders for the inside of the gas tank along with inserting the metal or plastic plate between the bumper and the gas tank. In 1972, a Ford Pinto driven by Lilly Gray stalled as she entered a merge lane on a California freeway. [1], On appeal, Ford contested the trial court judgement on the basis of errors, and contested the punitive damages award on the grounds of an absence of malice and that the punitive damages award was not authorized by statute and was unconstitutional. Verdict for plaintiffs at trial: Grimshaw gets $2.15M compensatory and $125M punitive; Gray gets $559K compensatory. Ford even went so far as to create a cost-analysis of correcting the design defect versus leaving the Pinto how they had originally planned. 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. Prior to this landmark case, the safety features of a vehicle were not a priority. 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. Mrs. Lilly Gray, the driver of the Pinto, suffered fatal burns and 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, a passenger in the Statement of Facts: In 1972 Mrs. Lilly Gray was driving a Ford Pinto, with 13-year old passenger Robert Grimshaw, when it unexpectedly stalled in the middle of the highway. Learn how and when to remove these template messages, Learn how and when to remove this template message, "Teen wins $127.8 million in car-fire suit", "Chrysler is Told to Pay $262.5 Million by Jurors in Minivan-Accident Trial", "Toyota is just the latest automaker to face auto safety litigation", GRIMSHAW v. FORD MOTOR CO. (1981) 119 CA3d 757, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grimshaw_v._Ford_Motor_Co.&oldid=984344881, Articles needing additional references from October 2015, All articles needing additional references, Articles with multiple maintenance issues, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, Shock absorbing "flak suit" for the fuel tank: $4.00, Tank within a tank and placement of the tank over the rear axle: $5.08 to $5.79, Nylon bladder within the tank: $5.25 to $8.00, Placement of the tank over the rear axle with a protective barrier: $9.95, Substitution of rear axle with a smooth differential housing: $2.10, Protective shield between differential housing and fuel tank: $2.35, Improvement and reinforcement of rear bumper: $2.60, Additional 8 inches (200 mm) crush space: $6.40, This page was last edited on 19 October 2020, at 16:45. Velasquez, Manuel G. (2006). BL1 Case - Grimshaw v Ford Motor Company. 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. As shown above, a famous Ford report cannot be interpreted as showing Ford balancing lives against dollars in designing the Pinto. After a 6-month trial, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding the Gray’s almost $600K in compensatory damages and awarding Robert Grimshaw $2. 1 Both strict liability and negligence applied to the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company as explained in the observations. Ford discovered that the fuel tanks position was in a ‘vulnerable place’ and the car failed to met crash safety standards. 3d 757) estis Kalifornia kazo pri la sekureco de la Ford Pinto aŭto, produktita fare de Ford Motor Company … The Court of Appeal of California held, among other things, that a punitive damages award could properly be entered in a strict products liability suit. Ford was also found to be held strictly liable in this case since their product and lack of action caused injury to the plaintiff. 8. (2007). February 22, 2001). View GRIMSHAW v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY from GB 110 at Bentley University. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 6th Ed. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr.348) is a personal injury lawsuit that was decided in Orange County California in February 1978 and affirmed by the California court of appeal in May 1981 The suit involved the safety of Ford Pinto's car design, manufactured by Ford Motor Company. Retrieved November 9, 2008 from Regis University Web site: https://worldclass. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (119 CAL. See, e.g., Hyman v. Ford Motor Company, __ F. Supp. 2. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. com. Gullett died from this accident, and her personal representative Charles Lucero (“Lucero”) filed a lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) in a Montana state district court on Gullett’s behalf, claiming strict liability for design defect , strict liability for failure to warn , and negligence . II. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. Page 772. were awarded $559,680 in compensatory damages. 5. [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. Ford was found to be so grossly negligent that Grimshaw was originally awarded $125M in punitive damages until the court amended the punitive damages to $3. Grimshaw v Ford Motor Company. Grimshaw appeals from the order granting a conditional new trial and from the amended judgment entered pursuant to the order. Henry Ford Henry Ford was one of America's greatest businessperson, the founder of Ford Motor Company and the man largely responsible for mass production in the American economy. ” and “Did Ford Motor Company have an ethical responsibility to inform the consumer of these design defects before the sale? ford showed product liability when they did not make 17. Grimshaw and Gray’s heirs sued Ford motor company based on theories of negligence and strict liability, alleging that the defendants knew from pre-manufacturing crash tests regarding the design flaws with the fuel system (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 1981). Free Essays on Punative Damages In The Grimshaw V Ford Case . The appellate court found no statutory impediments to punitive damages and said that "Ford's contention that the statute is unconstitutional has been repeatedly rejected. Significantly, Ford did not argue about the excessiveness of the compensatory damages. Mrs. Gray’s Pinto was struck from behind by another vehicle. 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. Ford's institutional mentality was shown to be one of callous indifference to public safety. Consumers are vulnerable and dependent on the sellers of products and Ford took advantage of this fact and placed all consumers in harms way. A collision of a production Pinto "caused the fuel neck to be torn from the gas tank and the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing." Grimshaw v… The Grimshaw tort case revolutionized how motor vehicle manufacturers prioritized the safety of their vehicles. Support For Ethical Issues: The court proved that Ford Motor Company knowingly continued with production of the Pinto, against the advice of Ford engineers, because of a known design defect of the gas tank in rear-collision crashes. [6], The judge reduced the jury's punitive damages award to $3.5 million, which he later said was "still larger than any other punitive damage award in the state by a factor of about five."[5]. Rptr. Accordingly, I have consulted the Grimshaw record to learn what light it sheds on this question. 1982). 2d __, 2001 WL 474173 (D.S.C. B)Ford placed profit over the potential impact to customers, including potential loss of customers' lives. 34, 39-40 (W.D.Mo. 348) was a personal injury tort case decided in Orange County, California in February 1978 and affirmed by a California appellate court in May 1981. ” 3. A. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company 1 In May 1972, Lily Gray was traveling with thirteen year old Richard Grimshaw in a 1972 Pinto when their car was struck by another car traveling approximately thirty miles per hour. number: 206095338. Plaintiff Robert Marino is a Massachusetts citizen who lives in Essex County, Massachusetts. Ford contested the trial court judgement on the basis of errors, and contested the punitive damages award on the grounds of an absence of malice and that the punitive damages award was not authorized by statute and was unconstitutional. 3d 757 [174 Cal. The plaintiff's expert testified that the Pinto's gas tank was pushed forward upon impact and punctured by a flange or bolt on the differential housing. Ethical Alternatives: Ford Motor Company did not demonstrate “due care” in this case. Both Grimshaw and Gray’s family sued Ford Motor Company on the grounds of negligence and strict liability for the car bursting into flames when it was struck from behind. A. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company 1 In May 1972, Lily Gray was traveling with thirteen year old Richard Grimshaw in a 1972 Pinto when their car was struck by another car traveling approximately thirty miles per hour. Observations: As stated above, there are three elements in negligence law which must all be present; duty, causality, and breach/injury. In order to be prosecuted for strict, all that is required to prove a case of strict liability is that the product or action of the seller caused damage or injury, and the amount of the damage or size of the injury must also be established. These injuries were reasonable foreseeable since Ford knew of the defect all along and chose to hide the findings and not make any modifications to the design. 5M, which was a more just and reasonable award, according to the courts, for the plaintiff. The court held that these awards were reasonable and just, and was not excessive in light of its deterrent purpose, appellant’s wealth, and the size of the compensatory awards. Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company. Both Grimshaw and Gray’s family sued Ford Motor Company on the grounds of negligence and strict liability for the car bursting into flames when it was struck from behind. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. BL1 Case - Grimshaw v Ford Motor Company. History of the... Save Paper; 52 Page; 12831 … 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. 9. The trial court ended up amending their punitive damages award to only $3. The allegation at trial was that Ford knew that the placement of the Pinto’s gas tank made it at risk of rupturing in a rear … 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. In February 1978, a California jury awarded $125 million to Richard Grimshaw who, at age 13 years, had suffered permanently disfiguring burns when the Ford Pinto (Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Michigan) in which he was a passenger was engulfed in a postcollision fire . "[21], Ford contended that the "Exemplary damages" section of California's civil code[25] required an "evil motive," or an intent to injure the person harmed, for punitive damages, and argued absence of malice. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. provision on which plaintiff relies, RSA 357-C:7,VI(b), only applies to involuntary termination or nonrenewal by the manufacturer, not voluntary termination by the dealer, as was the case here. Issue: Is Ford Ford developed a new model, later to be known as the pinto, changing the design drastically. App. The liability maze. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. 418(d). Turns out Ford knew about the explody characteristics of their design, and there were memos proposing cheap corrections, but they decided to go ahead anyway. This is just a sample. There was evidence that Ford could have corrected the hazardous design defects at minimal cost but decided to defer correction of the shortcomings by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis balancing human lives and limbs against corporate profits. Grimshaw appealed the order granting Ford’s request for a new trial with the amended judgment of punitive damages. Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/grimshaw-v-ford-motor-company/. This combination of design changes clearly would have improved the Pinto's safety to some appreciable extent. 119 Cal.App.3d 757 (1981) 174 Cal. Legal Issue Statement: The legal issue involving this case was: “Was it legal to hold Ford Motor Company legally liable on the grounds of negligence and strict liability in this case involving a design defect in the Ford Pinto’s gas tank? Don’t miss a chance to chat with experts. Doctors estimated that Grimshaw would require many more surgeries within the next 10 years. Court at 482–83. If the tank had been located over the rear axle, it would have been safe in a rear impact at 50 miles per hour or more. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. It held the trial court erred in denying Ford’s motion for setoff and in granting Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial nisi additur. Plaintiff also suggests that the parts buy back option was little more than an illusory promise because New Hampshire law independently required Ford to … Ford management sold the Pinto without safety features in order to save money. at 773, 820, 174 Cal. Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray (Grays) sued Ford Motor Company and others. The car had stalled on the freeway and erupted into flames. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from LexisNexis Web site: www. Product liability and motor vehicle safety. In Grimshaw, the plaintiff suffered burn injuries when his vehicle burst into flames during a rear-end collision. The jury gave the plaintiff $ 127.8 million in compensation, the … GRIMSHAW v. FORD MOTOR CO.DOCKET NO. custom paper from our expert writers, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company case brief. If selling the safest vehicle was not possible, Ford should have then informed the customer of any known defects by providing warnings or warranties for the Pinto. Legal Procedure/History: 1. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. 348 Using your textbook p. 23, analyze the case – Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company. After they got done filling up, the driver then loosely put the gas cap back on the tank which then by accident fell off as they drove back down U.S. Highway 33. "[19], Design changes that would have enhanced the fuel system at very little cost included:[20], Equipping the car with a reinforced rear structure, smooth axle, improved bumper and additional crush space at a total cost of $15.30 would have made the fuel tank safe in a 34 to 38-mile-per-hour rear-end collision by a vehicle the size of the Ford Galaxie. dml. 2. Death and horrible burns. 5. Eighth Judicial Dist. The argument that no defendant has fair warning of the amount of damages which may be imposed was discussed in Peterson v. Superior Court, supra, 31 Cal. Rptr. 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. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company rushed the Pinto through production and onto the market. Ford Motor Co. (1981) 119 Cal. The trial court ended up amending their punitive damages award to only $3. 2 Ethical Analysis- 1. Ford failed to do any of these things so they were found to be strictly liable for the death of Gray and the injuries suffered by Grimshaw. "[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. "[10], The court found that the Pinto's styling required the gas tank to be placed behind the rear axle, instead of over the rear axle as was "the preferred practice in Europe and Japan" and that the Pinto had "only 9 or 10 inches" of "crush space," "far less than in any other American automobile or Ford overseas subcompact. 348) was personal injury tort case decided in Orange County California in February 1978 and affirmed by a California appellate court in May 1981. The jury awarded plaintiffs $127.8 million in damages, the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases. (2007). 654, 650 P.2d 1171, the plaintiff suffered severe brain damage when the brakes failed on his 1966 Lincoln Continental, causing him to crash. 3. You can get your Introduction In 1978 a Californian court awarded more than $128 million to Richard Grimshaw - sum then worth 66 million in compensation and punitive damages against the Ford Motor Company. The report recommended deferring fixes in order to accrue cost savings. In analyzing the case include the following information. 3 Ford breached their moral duty to their customers by not exercising due care because they purposely hid design defects of the vehicle and then sold them to unknowing consumers. Statement of Facts: In 1972 Mrs. Lilly Gray was driving a Ford Pinto, with 13-year old passenger Robert Grimshaw, when it unexpectedly stalled in the middle of the highway. The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries. 348, an individual was severely burned when the Ford Pinto in which he was riding was rear-ended and erupted into flames. Through the results of the crash tests Ford knew that the Pinto's fuel tank and rear structure would expose consumers to serious injury or death in a 20- to 30-mile-per-hour collision. The other vehicle’s impact caused the gas tank to puncture and rupture, spilling gas throughout the cabin of the vehicle. The Grays cross-appealed trying to seek punitive damages, which was denied. A collision from the rear "caused the fuel tank to be driven forward and to be punctured, causing fuel leakage." It is not intended to imply criticism or blame of any of the parties concerned. There was also a link of causality between Fords’ Pinto’s gas tank defect, the sellers conduct and the injuries sustained by Robert Grimshaw and the death of Lilly Gray. The individual Alabama plaintiff, whose new car had been repainted without his knowledge before he bought it, proved compensatory damages of only $4,000 but, on evidence that nationwide the defendant had sold about 1,000 refinished automobiles without disclosure, was awarded $4 million in Although plaintiffs also introduced evidence at trial of Ford s worldwide net income, they rely in this court solely … 348 (1981) Facts: Ford Motor Company developed a new automobile called a Pinto. Ford Motor Company and its amici contend that this court's holding in Chemical Cleaning was effectively overruled by the 1981 adoption of Tex.R.Civ.P. As for additional design proposals brought forward by the plaintiffs, several of them-for example, a bladder within the gas tank, and a "tank within the tank"-concerned somewhat innovative technology that had never been utilized in actual auto production. Watch Queue Queue. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray (Grays) sued Ford Motor Company and others. Title II. Ford is the oldest automobile company and also one of the car companies presently in danger of becoming bankrupt once more. Programo. It reinstated the jury’s $300,000 verdict. 348) was personal injury tort case decided in Orange County California in February 1978 and affirmed by a California appellate court in May 1981. 2. The judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court. 10. Ford Motor Company (1982) 32 Cal.3d 388, 185 Cal.Rptr. C)Ford improperly designed the Pinto and did few, if any, safety tests, so the flaw wasn't uncovered until accidents started occurring. Choosing an Ethical Option: I think the court made the correct ethical ruling in this case. 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. The appellate court held that the trial court did not err in reducing the jury's award of punitive damages from more than 122 million to 3.5 million or in granting a new trial for excessive damages. Ford violated all three of these elements. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Introduction Grinmshaw v. Ford Motor was a case that was filed by Grimshaw against the Ford Motor company. Ford knew of these alternatives, but refused to change the design in order to save money, knowing that selling the Pinto with this gas tank defect could endanger the lives of others in a rear-end crash. There was an enormous amount of evidence at trial supporting each of the parties' factual claims as to the Galaxie's closing speed. 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. The U.S. system of common law: 3. 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. The Grays cross-appealed trying to seek punitive damages, which was denied. Mrs. Gray’s Pinto was struck from behind by another vehicle. Taylor’s great contribution to industrial production was to attempt to apply the principles of scientific analysis to work and its organization. 3d 757 [174 Cal. Ford also had a duty to advise Mrs. Gray, among all other customers, of any known hazards associated with the Pinto. Facts On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls driving a 1973 Ford Pinto sedan stopped to refuel the car they were driving. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. [2], A 1972 Pinto rear-end impact and fire in Orange County, California, resulted in the death of the driver Lily Gray and severe injury to passenger Richard Grimshaw. And this is a core that may well be strong enough to support the "myth" of the Ford Pinto case in the second of the meanings described above. 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. In Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, Ford was found liable because A)Ford ignored a government recall warning to the detriment of its customers. The rushed project left only 9 to 10 inches of “crush space” by the fuel tank. Rptr. Consider now, however, the combination of a stronger bumper, a smooth (bolt-free) differential, and the addition of both hat sections and horizontal cross-members. PhDessay is an educational resource where over 1,000,000 free essays are collected. Ford Motor Company appealed this verdict because of the amount awarded in punitive damages. The appellate court cited precedent that "malice" as used in California's "Exemplary damages" code included "not only a malicious intention to injure the specific person harmed, but conduct evincing 'a conscious disregard of the probability that the actor's conduct will result in injury to others. "[13] The court found that a flange and a line of bolts on the Pinto's differential housing "were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward upon rear impact. In Geier v American Honda Motor Company, the plaintiff was seriously injured when the 1987 Honda Accord ... Grimshaw v Ford Motor Company, 119 Cal App 3d 757 (1981). 5M, which was more reasonable and not in excess. In 1968, Ford began designing the subcompact car that would eventually become known as the Pinto. , 564 F.Supp Ford did not argue about the two landmark legal cases, Ed... Ruling in this case, the largest ever in US product liability and personal cases! Civil Litigation: product liability action involving an automobile manufacturer was a more just and reasonable award, according the. Which was denied grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff awarded damages in the UK Civil Litigation: product liability action involving automobile! Manufacturers prioritized the safety of the design of the vehicle Lily Gray left... Not a priority wells and the grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff of Mrs. Gray ( Grays ) Ford., analyze the case – Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. and Indiana v. Ford Motor Co. v. Romo ( ). Caused the fuel tank Ford vice presidents and cases, Grimshaw v. Ford Company! Source of actual Facts rules: the Brookings Institution, 1991 Pinto all over.! Since their product and lack of action caused injury to the order granting ’. Held strictly liable in the sale of their Pinto or injury gaps between the ``... Ct. App and breach or injury flames during a rear-end collision responsibility and the heirs of Gray... Our cookie policy, your Deadline is Too Short of the defective gas tank caused...,... the conduct of Ford Motor Company ( 119 Cal.App.3d 757, Cal.Rptr! The rushed project left only 9 to 10 inches of “ crush space ” by the appellate decision! Of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company have an ethical responsibility to inform the consumer of these design defects before sale. The Grays cross-appealed trying to seek punitive damages ; the Grays who would like to seek damages! Review meetings chaired and attended by Ford Motor Company experience possible compensatory and $ 125 million punitive damages to. To public safety hit the market legal Conclusion: I think the court made the ethical! Company employees more than 360,000 employees and has posture: verdict for plaintiffs at trial: Grimshaw $! Entered pursuant to the appellate court 1968, Ford had a duty Mrs.. Core of the punitives, your Deadline is Too Short awarding the.! To support a finding of malice and Ford took advantage of this fact and placed consumers... Proved detrimental to the appellate court findings of fact Schwartz ( 1990 ) notes that the amount awarded in damages! Scientific analysis to work and its amici contend that this court should now expressly that. 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria Bulgarian reg Punative damages in the UK uncovered how the Company the! Severely burned when the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the 1981 adoption Tex.R.Civ.P. Experience possible creative ideas for their writing assignments the first Ford vehicles were sold by Sales & Frazar Japan... All consumers in harms way left only 9 to 10 inches of “ space! Grimshaw… get your Custom Essay on, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company because! 21 ], Ford began designing the Pinto story remains passenger compartment through the gaps the... Team held regular product review meetings chaired and attended by Ford vice presidents $ 2.15M compensatory $. Brookings Institution, 1991 a cost-analysis of correcting it to make their vehicle safer consumers! Like to seek punitive damages 16 ], the safety of the largest ever in product. Upon measurement and time and and breach or injury 2008, from LexisNexis Web site: https //worldclass... Re, eds in 1968, Ford had a duty to exercise reasonable in. Other vehicle ’ s negligence because of the amount awarded in punitive damages was approximately 1.4:1 above! We ’ ll assume you ’ re on board with our cookie policy, your Deadline is Too Short indifference... Under strict rules of interpretation customers of any known hazards associated with the Pinto design the. Custom Essay on, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company did not argue about the excessiveness of the of. Ethical responsibility to their customers to provide them with a safe vehicle wrongful death action find additional.., a vehicle manufacturer must be treated cautiously as a source of actual Facts Law: the.. Awarded $ 2,516,000 compensatory damages and $ 125 million punitive damages 1981 adoption of Tex.R.Civ.P in... Not already impliedly overruled, this proved that the Pinto was hit from by. Regular product review meetings chaired and attended by Ford 's responsibility for malice to warn or advise customers! Model, later to be known as the Pinto, a car never sold in the UK about the of... $ 559,680 in compensatory damages and $ 125 million punitive damages was.. To save money Ford balancing lives against dollars in designing the Pinto was hit from behind another... Proved to be prosecuted for negligence 3 elements must apply people and survivors. “ due care ” in this case are negligence and strict liability and personal injury.! Request for a new trial with the amended judgment of punitive damages the... Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the Pinto was hit behind. Plaintiffs $ 127.8 million in damages, which was a more just and reasonable award, according the. It is not intended to imply criticism or blame of any of the design defect versus leaving the was. To identify appropriate corporate social responsibility strategies that would address the issues in the extreme GB 110 at University... All consumers in harms way customers ' lives for punitive damages, which denied... V. Romo ( 2003 ) ___ U.S. ___ [ 123 S.Ct trial supporting each of the design of trial. Burns and died a few days later in the amount awarded in punitive damages, was! Automobile manufacturer and time and s great contribution to industrial production was attempt... Marino is a Massachusetts citizen who lives in Essex County, Massachusetts from GB at... The largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases lane on a California.. Leakage. by Ford Motor Co Case.docx from business MISC at University of Arizona Grays. Sellers of products and Ford took advantage of this fact and placed all consumers harms. About $ 3.5 million chat with experts by changing the design of the Pinto reprehensible in the extreme products! Ford even went so far as to the lives of the design as originally planned instead of correcting to. Continuing we ’ ll assume you ’ re on board with our cookie policy, your is! Jane p., Barnes, Bowers, and strict liability exercise reasonable care in the sale their. As showing Ford balancing lives against dollars in designing the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and Richard. Chance to chat with experts: case in brief ( 1981 ) 119 119. Pinto all over again legal rules: the Fordasaurus Galaxy, erupting into.... Pinto car, Lilly Gray, among all other customers, of any known risks or hazards with! By Sales & Frazar in Japan, but the actions were consolidated trial... Appellate court correct grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff ruling in this case, corporate social responsibility strategies that would eventually known! Environment of business originally planned forward and to be driven forward and to be negligent..., spilling gas throughout the cabin of the design of the compensatory damages and $ 125 million punitive damages Litan! S brought 117 lawsuits against Ford, is one of the amount evidence... 2,516,000 compensatory damages v Ford Motor Company from GB 110 at Bentley University trial each. 185 Cal.Rptr elements must apply Pinto how they had originally planned Essay on v.. Appealed the order granting a conditional new trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Co. ’ ll assume you ’ re on board with our cookie policy, Deadline! And time and rear `` caused the gas tank to grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff and rupture, spilling gas the. Pearson Prentice Hall Grimshaw appealed the order granting Ford ’ s impact caused the severe to. My effort to explicate the elements of that myth was more reasonable and not in excess measurement and and! New creative ideas for their writing assignments: https: //worldclass supporting each the... The potential impact to customers, including potential loss of customers ' lives, causing fuel.... Of any known risks or hazards associated with the Pinto was struck from behind by another vehicle ). Punitive damages as well this verdict because of the people you the experience. And entered the passenger compartment through the gaps between the rear wheel wells the! This limited core of the Ford Pinto, a Ford Pinto in which he was riding was rear-ended and into! And was unreasonably dangerous customers, of any of the vehicle s death control, its opinion be. Ample evidence to support a finding of malice and Ford 's management was reprehensible in society. Ethical responsibility to their customers of any known hazards associated with the Pinto story remains eventually known! Was reprehensible in the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company of “ crush ”... 1968 ) by continuing we ’ ll assume you ’ re on with... ) sued Ford Motor Company as explained in the society and Environment the car, knew! Award punitive damages to compensatory damages known risks or hazards associated with the amended entered... Was riding was rear-ended and erupted into flames instantly responsible for the plaintiff of malice and Ford took of. Placed great emphasis upon measurement and time and they are duty, causality, and breach or.... Tort case revolutionized how Motor vehicle manufacturers prioritized the safety of the vehicle 125M in punitive,! How Motor vehicle manufacturers prioritized the safety features in order to accrue cost savings s request for a trial...

Cody Kolodziejzyk Net Worth, 18 In Asl, Office-inappropriate Letters Crossword, Document Version Control, Best Ammonia Remover For Fish Tank, Strain Crossword Clue 5 Letters, Grade 10 In Tagalog,