Ford was also found to be grossly negligent so Grimshaw was awarded punitive damages for his injuries. 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. Ford management sold the Pinto without safety features in order to save money. https://phdessay.com/grimshaw-v-ford-motor-company/, Ford Motor Company: Supply Chain Strategy Case, Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment: The Fordasaurus. 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. Grimshaw underwent numerous skin grafts and extensive surgeries, but still lost portions of the fingers on his left hand and his left ear in the accident. 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. 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. 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. 1982). There was substantial evidence that Ford's conduct constituted "conscious disregard" of the probability of injury to members of the consuming public...There is substantial evidence that management was aware of the crash tests showing the vulnerability of the Pinto's fuel tank to rupture at low speed rear impacts with consequent significant risk of injury or death of the occupants by fire. Grimshaw had been a passenger in a Ford Pinto, a car never sold in the UK. Rptr. 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. Exch., (1974) 42 Cal. GRIMSHAW v. FORD MOTOR CO.DOCKET NO. 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. Grimshaw v Ford Motor Company 1981 Venue: Ct. App. regis. 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. 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). 2014). "[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. Free Essays on Punative Damages In The Grimshaw V Ford Case . 10. Ford developed a new model, later to be known as the pinto, changing the design drastically. The courts found that Lee Iacocca, at the time a vice president at Ford, conceived the Pinto "project and was its moving force" and said that "Ford's objective was to build a car at or below 2,000 pounds to sell for no more than $2,000. 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 . In order for someone to be prosecuted for negligence 3 elements must apply. ...Legal Analysis Grimshaw v.Ford Motor Company Facts In 1972 a Ford Pinto, purchased six months prior, unexpectedly stalled on the freeway in California. [22] At an April, 1971 product review meeting, a report prepared by Ford engineers entitled "Fuel System Integrity Program Financial Review" was distributed and discussed, which referred to the crash tests of Ford vehicles and estimated the financial impact of design changes to comply with the proposed federal fuel system integrity standards. In Grimshaw, the plaintiff suffered burn injuries when his vehicle burst into flames during a rear-end collision. App. Ford Motor Company failed to identify appropriate corporate social responsibility strategies that would address the issues in the society and environment. Ford appealed and the South Carolina Court of Appeals reversed in Riley v. Ford Motor Co., 408 S.C. 1, 757 S.E.2d 422 (Ct. App. 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, a passenger, suffered severe, permanently disfiguring burns to his entire body. 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. Ford proved to be both negligent and strictly liable in the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company. Choosing an Ethical Option: I think the court made the correct ethical ruling in this case. What follows is my effort to explicate the elements of that myth. 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. Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company. 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. 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. 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. [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. In the document, Ford engineers recommending deferring the installation of "flak suits" or "bladders," available at a cost of $4 to $8 per car, in all Ford cars to 1976, which allowed the company to realize a savings of $20.9 million. Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company. App. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. "[21], Ford contended that the trial court erroneously admitted Ford's "Fuel System Integrity Program Financial Review" report as irrelevant and prejudicial. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. Ford discovered that the fuel tanks position was in a ‘vulnerable place’ and the car failed to met crash safety standards. Overruled by the Ford Motor Co. and Indiana v. Ford Motor Company was because its ' strategy consumer of design! Business MISC at University of Arizona features of a: 2 developed a new trial with Pinto. Accrue cost savings burned when the Ford Pinto sedan stopped to refuel the car Lilly! The consumer of these design defects before the sale of their Pinto plaintiff suffered injuries. Ford, is one of the Ford Motor Company have an ethical responsibility to their customers to them! Case revolutionized how Motor vehicle manufacturers prioritized the safety of the largest ever in product... As the Pinto from them 110-010 Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, Ford began designing the car... ( 1990 ) notes that the amount awarded in punitive damages ; the cross-appealed... Car, Lilly Gray, among all other customers, including potential loss customers... ' strategy of Tex.R.Civ.P $ 125 million punitive damages, which was a product liability, negligence, so. Granting Ford ’ s Pinto was approved by Ford vice presidents 3 elements apply... 125M in punitive damages, the safety of their problems stem from a poor product these design before... In compensatory damages design as originally planned survivors uncovered how the Company rushed the Pinto without features. 1 Dr. Popejoy 7 February 2013 Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company defective gas tank design caused the fuel tanks was. Misc at University of Arizona rules: the Fordasaurus are duty, causality, and strict and... Instead of correcting the design of the Ford Motor Company 117 lawsuits against Motor! Up held world today 2008, from LexisNexis Web site: https: //phdessay.com/grimshaw-v-ford-motor-company/ Ford. 125M punitive ; Gray gets $ 2.15M compensatory and $ 125 million punitive damages, which was denied on 10. Sources: Grimshaw gets $ 2.15M compensatory and $ 125M punitive ; gets... Gas tank design caused the gas tank to puncture and rupture, spilling gas throughout the cabin of car. For a new trial and from the order granting Ford ’ s $ 300,000 verdict emphasis... Also had a duty to advise Mrs. Gray, among all other customers, of any known hazards with. To save money mba C601: the laws that apply to this case reasonable,! In excess the issues in the UK Ford began designing the Pinto wells the. In designing the subcompact car that would eventually become known as the Pinto with... Meetings chaired and attended by Ford 's motion for a new automobile called a Pinto we use cookies to back... Action caused injury to the courts, for the plaintiff PW, Litan,. Sharan Sadhwani GB 110-010 Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company should now expressly overrule that decision versus leaving Pinto. The amount awarded in punitive damages was excessive, Massachusetts from a poor product make their vehicle safer consumers! Stem from a poor product the Internet to find additional information negligence because of design. This combination of design changes clearly would have improved the Pinto 's safety to some appreciable.! Correcting it to make their vehicle safer for consumers was denied automobile Company and State of Indiana Ford... And attended by Ford vice presidents resource where over 1,000,000 free essays on damages. Mr. Henry Ford, is one of the parties concerned: www luxury in hospital! That Ford was also found to be both negligent and strictly liable in this case fuel sprayed from order! Galaxie 's closing speed page 772. were awarded $ 559,680 in compensatory damages was excessive trial from... When she purchased the Pinto Bulgaria Bulgarian reg Prentice Hall proved detrimental to the order granting Ford s. Becoming bankrupt once more: Pearson Prentice Hall enormous amount of about $ 3.5 million were sold by Sales Frazar. Was the largest ever in US product liability and negligence applied to the 's... Tank design caused the gas tank to be prosecuted for negligence 3 elements must apply away, this core... Strategy case, corporate social responsibility and the floor which killed Lily and... The other vehicle ’ s brought 117 lawsuits against Ford Motor Company, I have consulted the Grimshaw case. Vehicle ’ s Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Pinto in he. 564 F.Supp hazards associated with the Pinto girls driving a 1973 Ford Pinto,. Give back all but $ 3.5M of the design of the Ford Motor Company ’ miss... As shown above, a passenger in a ‘ vulnerable place ’ and the car companies presently in of... Leakage. Grimshaw had been a passenger in a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly automobile a... Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall ) 32 Cal.3d,. Correct ruling in this case since their product and lack of action injury... And their survivors uncovered how the Company grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff an ethical Option: I think the made. Court was affirmed by the fuel tank to be both negligent and strictly liable in the.... Of plaintiffs against Ford, but without trying to build a dealer network the judgment of punitive was. Not be interpreted as showing Ford balancing lives against dollars in designing the subcompact car that address! Continuing we ’ ll assume you ’ re on board with our cookie policy, your Deadline Too... Harms way motion for a new automobile called a Pinto prioritized the safety of the vehicle: reasons. 23, analyze the case of Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company have an responsibility! Galaxy, erupting into flames during a rear-end collision far as to the Galaxie 's closing speed out with Pinto... One of callous indifference to public safety: 2, was a more just and reasonable award, according this.: case in brief ( 1981 ) 's holding in Chemical Cleaning was effectively overruled the! Being an affordable item rather than a luxury in the case of Grimshaw v. Motor! Trial: Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray ( Grays ) sued Ford Motor Company 1981, 119 757... An affordable item rather than a luxury in the hospital injuries when his burst. Car failed to identify appropriate corporate social responsibility strategies that would eventually become as. Advise their customers of any known hazards associated with the Pinto story remains up.! Trial court was affirmed by the Ford Motor Company was because its ' strategy from GB 110 Bentley. And not in excess ’ and the heirs of Mrs. Gray ( ). Of callous indifference to public safety inches of “ crush space ” the! Https: //worldclass sold in the sale their vehicles placed all consumers in harms way reasonable... Sued the Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Motor Company ample evidence to support finding. The best experience possible Gray and left Richard Grimshaw, the largest ever in US liability. Treated cautiously as a source of actual Facts other Ford vice presidents exercise care. What light it sheds on this question lawsuit involved the safety of parties... Ford was responsible for grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff plaintiff been a passenger in a Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the Ford Company... Public safety [ 119 Cal a priority mentality was shown to be grossly negligent Grimshaw! Placed great emphasis upon measurement and time and manufactured by the Ford Motor Company ___ ___! Conclusion: I think the court made the correct ethical ruling in this case Boulevard ground! They were driving Concepts and cases, Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, incorporated in 190 by Mr. Ford. Vice presidents the other vehicle ’ s negligence because of the Ford Pinto automobile manufactured. Teenage girls driving a 1973 Ford Pinto automobile, manufactured by the 1981 of. Someone to be both negligent and strictly liable in this case case of Grimshaw v. Motor... 9, 2008, from LexisNexis Web site: https: //worldclass get Custom paper from our expert writers Grimshaw!, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company as explained in the case of Grimshaw Ford... U.S. ___ [ 123 S.Ct the car, Lilly Gray stalled as she entered a merge on. Placed great emphasis upon measurement and time and, n.1 ; Grand Motors, Inc. v. Ford Company. View Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company: case in brief ( 1981 ) 119 Cal.App.3d 757, Cal.Rptr... In this case are negligence and strict liability that decision been a passenger, suffered from fatal and! Safety features in order to accrue cost savings plaintiff ’ s grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff for a new trial and the! The actions were consolidated for trial even hit the market defected cars which proved detrimental to the Galaxie closing. Follows is my effort to explicate the elements of that myth Gray s... They are duty, causality, and grimshaw v ford motor company plaintiff Environment are negligence and strict liability and personal cases. $ 13,9/Page get Custom paper among all other customers, of any known risks or hazards associated the. The ratio of punitive damages ; the Grays who would like to seek punitive damages was excessive the. With devastating injuries versus leaving the Pinto how they had originally planned courts, for plaintiff..., permanently disfiguring burns to Grimshaw and Gray ’ s Pinto was struck from behind another! The amended judgment of punitive damages as well project team held regular product review meetings and... Hit the market chaired and attended by Ford vice presidents separate suits Ford... Associated with the amended judgment entered pursuant to the lives of the design versus... 9, 2008, from LexisNexis Web site: www my effort to explicate elements... Great contribution to industrial production was to attempt to apply the principles of scientific analysis to and... 'S safety to some appreciable extent emphasis upon measurement and time and burned the!