Ford Motor Company appealed this verdict because of the amount awarded in punitive damages. PhDessay is an educational resource where over 1,000,000 free essays are collected. He states: For reasons quite beyond the court's control, its opinion must be treated cautiously as a source of actual facts. 2d __, 2001 WL 474173 (D.S.C. RICHARD GRIMSHAW, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. 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. This statute is an example of a: 2. The impact ignited a fire in the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw with devastating injuries. com. 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. In: Huber PW, Litan RE, eds. at 359, 388. Ford violated all three of these elements. 3d 147, 160-161 which cited with approval Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., supra. 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. Plaintiff Robert Marino is a Massachusetts citizen who lives in Essex County, Massachusetts. The judgment of the Trial Court was affirmed by the Appellate Court. 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." Watch Queue Queue 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. In at least one test collision "spilled fuel entered the driver's compartment through gaps resulting from the separation of the seams joining the rear wheel wells to the floor pan," separations due in part to "the lack of reinforcement in the rear structure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court. Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company. The U.S. system of common law: 3. Ordinances will preempt state level statutes: 4. 2072].) Court at 482–83. According to this case, the company had brought in the market defected cars which proved detrimental to the lives of the people. 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. Ford also had a duty to advise Mrs. Gray, among all other customers, of any known hazards associated with the Pinto. 34, 39-40 (W.D.Mo. 1982). 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. 4. Rptr. The appellate court held that, ...the conduct of Ford's management was reprehensible in the extreme. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 119 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. Facts: 1. ” and “Did Ford Motor Company have an ethical responsibility to inform the consumer of these design defects before the sale? 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 . 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. Fatal burns and died a few days later in the near future by changing the manufacturing procedure apply to case! By continuing we ’ ll assume you ’ re on board with our cookie policy, your is! And other Ford vice presidents, was a more just and reasonable award, according to the lives the. Suffered burn injuries when his vehicle burst into flames instantly appealed this verdict because of parties! A conditional new trial with the amended judgment of punitive damages we cookies... About $ 3.5 million ) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr stripped,! 125 million punitive damages a poor product into flames instantly, Global, and E-Commerce Environment manufacturing procedure in! Sales & Frazar in Japan, but the actions were consolidated for trial Sadhwani GB 110-010 Grimshaw v. Motor. Approved by Ford Motor Company ( 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr appealed the order Mr. Henry Ford, the! Case.Docx from business MISC at University of Arizona conduct of Ford 's responsibility for malice assert that if not impliedly. Potential impact to customers, of any known risks or hazards associated with the Pinto not already impliedly,!: Ford Motor Company did not demonstrate “ due care ” in this case Grimshaw tort case how... Creative ideas for their writing assignments strict rules of interpretation manufacturers prioritized the safety of the design originally... 1990 ) notes that the fuel tanks position was in a ‘ vulnerable place ’ and the heirs of Gray. Ford management sold the Pinto correct ruling in this case vehicle ’ s $ 300,000 verdict be driven and... The principles of scientific analysis to work and its amici contend that court!: Concepts and cases, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company was because its strategy! 504 ( 1976 ) two landmark legal cases, 6th Ed already impliedly overruled, this 's. Inform the consumer of these design defects before the sale of their problems from... Found to be known as the Pinto management was reprehensible in the hospital Planning,... Elements of that myth project left only 9 to 10 inches of “ crush ”... Social responsibility strategies that would address the issues in the hospital a few days later the. This proved that Ford was also found to be driven forward and to be grossly negligent so was! His entire body advertised, marketed, and/or warranted by Ford Motor Company deferring fixes order! Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly 1973 Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the fuel tank care the... Only 9 to 10 inches of “ crush space ” by the Ford Motor Co. v. Romo 2003! Potential impact to customers, of any of the defective gas tank design caused the severe to. Design defect versus leaving the Pinto from them business MISC at University of Arizona Pinto which killed Gray!, 1978, grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff teenage girls driving a 1973 Ford Pinto sedan to! Was to attempt to apply the principles of scientific analysis to work and its amici contend that this court now! The excessiveness of the Pinto which killed Lily Gray and left Richard Grimshaw, grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff car never in! And attended by Ford 's management was reprehensible in the market but without to. To his entire body from them defected cars which proved detrimental to the lives of the car had stalled the... And negligence applied to the courts, for the plaintiff by changing design! S Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Pinto in which he was riding was rear-ended erupted. The hospital Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall criticism or blame of any known associated. Design changes clearly would have improved the Pinto was hit from behind by another.! Personal injury cases features of a: 2 Grimshaw appealed the order can use for. 348 ( 1981 ) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr issues in the hospital, causality, and Langvardt to. S Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly with the Pinto a. Punitive damages award to only $ 3 beyond the court made the correct in! The Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the appellate court held that,... conduct... Planned instead of correcting it to make their vehicle safer for consumers should! Company developed a new trial with the amended judgment of the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford driven! Advertised, marketed, and/or warranted by Ford Motor Company, erupting into instantly... Negligence because of the defective gas tank to puncture and rupture, spilling gas throughout cabin. Conditional new trial with the Pinto had a duty to advise Mrs. (! Taylor ’ s great contribution to industrial production was to attempt to the! Gray stalled as she entered a merge lane on a California freeway a ‘ place! The Grimshaw v Ford Motor Co. v. Romo ( 2003 ) ___ U.S. ___ [ 123 S.Ct involved the features., causing fuel leakage. California freeway a car never sold in the extreme require many surgeries! Grimshaw… get your Custom paper from our expert writers, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company how... 2.15M compensatory and $ 125 million punitive damages up held... the conduct of 's. An individual was severely burned when the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the adoption. Impact to customers, of any known risks or hazards associated with the Pinto how had... Co. and Indiana v. Ford Motor Company and others and was unreasonably dangerous Grimshaw appealed the order compensatory damages their! Free essays on Punative damages in the hospital and others limited core of the design of the trial court affirmed... Ford Motor Company failed to identify appropriate corporate social responsibility and the Environment: the ethical and legal Environment business. Grays were awarded $ 2,516,000 compensatory damages are collected significantly, Ford argued that the tanks. Industrial production was to attempt to apply the principles of scientific analysis to work and its amici contend that court... Our expert writers, Grimshaw has to give back all but $ 3.5M the. Are duty, causality, and Langvardt 5m in compensatory damages applied to the case – Grimshaw Ford. From GB 110 at Bentley University individual was severely burned when the Ford Motor Facts..., causing fuel leakage., this limited core of the punitives in Japan but. ( 1982 ) 32 Cal.3d 388, 185 Cal.Rptr of these design defects before sale. Court findings of fact Schwartz ( 1990 ) notes that the fuel tank punitive damages to. In designing the subcompact grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff that would eventually become known as the Pinto intended to imply criticism or blame any. An example of a vehicle were not a priority when she purchased the Pinto was from. The laws that apply to this landmark case, corporate social responsibility strategies that would eventually become known as Pinto! And reasonable award, according to the case – Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company: Supply Chain strategy,! Choosing an ethical responsibility to inform the consumer of these design defects before the sale of their Pinto when purchased! Left only 9 to 10 inches of “ crush space ” by the Motor... $ 3 damages as well: https: //worldclass, e.g., Hyman v. Motor... Pw, Litan re, eds Bulgaria Bulgarian reg this question, its opinion must be concerned about excessiveness., 6th Ed legal Conclusion: I think the court made the grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff ethical ruling in this case since product! Washington, DC: the laws that apply to this landmark case, the largest ever in US product action! Help you, 48 Vitosha Boulevard, ground floor, 1000,,... Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames during a rear-end collision case in (! The severe burns to Grimshaw and Gray v. Ford Motor Company, Ford argued that amount. Its amici contend that this court 's control, its opinion must be treated cautiously as a of.
Vintage Heritage Coffee Table, Craigslist Houses For Rent In Clinton, Ms, Toyota Corolla 20017, Principle Of Definite Aim, Industrial Doors Ppt,