Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. - Wikipedia
Jump to content
Search
Search
Donate
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Donate
Create account
Log in
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.
Add languages
Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Court case in California, US
This article needs more citations . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.<br>Find sources: "Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co." – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
McDaniel · Kaufman"},"number of judges":{"wt":"3"},"decision by":{"wt":"Tamura, joined by McDaniel"},"concurring":{"wt":"Kaufman"},"dissenting":{"wt":""},"concur/dissent":{"wt":""},"prior actions":{"wt":""},"appealed from":{"wt":""},"appealed to":{"wt":""},"subsequent actions":{"wt":""},"related actions":{"wt":""},"opinions":{"wt":""},"keywords":{"wt":""},"italic title":{"wt":""}},"i":0}}]}'>Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.CourtCourt of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division TwoFull case name RICHARD GRIMSHAW, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant; CARMEN GRAY, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant DecidedMay 29, 1981 (1981-05-29)Citation119 Cal.App.3d 757Court membershipJudges sittingTamura (Acting P.J.)<br>McDaniel · KaufmanCase opinionsDecision byTamura, joined by McDanielConcurrenceKaufman
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company (119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 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. The lawsuit involved the safety of the design of the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company. The jury awarded plaintiffs $127.8 million in damages, the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company was one of the most widely publicized of the more than a hundred lawsuits brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents in the Pinto.[1] The trial judge reduced the jury's punitive damages award to $3.5 million.
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. The appellate court affirmed the trial court.[2]
Trial<br>[edit]
A 1972 Pinto rear-end impact and fire in San Bernardino, California, resulted in the death of the driver Lilly Gray and severe injury to passenger Richard Grimshaw. Gray's family and Grimshaw filed separate suits against Ford, but the actions were consolidated for trial. 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. The jury award was the largest ever in US product liability and personal injury cases.[3][4][5] The jury award was the largest against an automaker until a $150 million verdict in a 1996 case, Hardy vs. General Motors.[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]
Reaction<br>[edit]
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. As shown above, a famous Ford report cannot be interpreted as showing Ford balancing lives against dollars in designing the Pinto. To state that the report does not itself reveal such a process does not mean, however, that such a process did not take place. Accordingly, I have consulted the Grimshaw record to learn what light it sheds on this question. 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. 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. At trial, there was testimony that a bladder would have been feasible in the early 1970's, but also rebuttal testimony that a bladder was at this time beyond the bounds of feasibility. 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. Consider now, however, the combination of a stronger bumper, a smooth...