Legal Analysis Grimshaw V Ford Motor Company
Legal Analysis
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company
Facts
In 1972 a Ford Pinto, purchased six months prior, unexpectedly stalled on the freeway in California. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. The passenger, a 13-year old boy named Richard Grimshaw, was also severely injured from burns, which caused his face and body to be permanently disfigured.
After analyzing the cause of the crash, experts identified that there were significant design deficiencies of the Pinto made by Ford Motor Company and the company was knowledgeable of these deficiencies before launching it into the market for consumers.
Richard Grimshaw and the surviving family members of Lilly Gray sued Ford Motor Company for negligence and strict liability. In the original verdict Richard Grimshaw was awarded $2,516,000 for compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. The Gray’s were awarded $559,680 in compensatory damages. Because of a motion filed by Ford Motor Company the punitive damages awarded to Richard Grimshaw was later reduced to $3.5 million.
Ford Motor Company appealed to the court claiming there were several errors during the trial including the misconduct of counsel and the high punitive damage ward given to Richard Grimshaw. Both Grimshaw and the Gray family cross-appealed both addressing the punitive damage issue. May 29, 1981, The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed a trial court judgment that the jury’s punitive damages award was reasonable.
During the trial there were four factors indentified that proved negligence and strict liability by Ford Motor Company. The design of the Pinto fuel system, the knowledge or failed crash tests by the Pinto prior to placing the car in the market, the Ford Motor Company cost benefit analysis, and the management’s decision to go forward
Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company
Facts
In 1972 a Ford Pinto, purchased six months prior, unexpectedly stalled on the freeway in California. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. The driver of the car, Lilly Gray, suffered from fatal burns and died a few days later in the hospital. The passenger, a 13-year old boy named Richard Grimshaw, was also severely injured from burns, which caused his face and body to be permanently disfigured.
After analyzing the cause of the crash, experts identified that there were significant design deficiencies of the Pinto made by Ford Motor Company and the company was knowledgeable of these deficiencies before launching it into the market for consumers.
Richard Grimshaw and the surviving family members of Lilly Gray sued Ford Motor Company for negligence and strict liability. In the original verdict Richard Grimshaw was awarded $2,516,000 for compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. The Gray’s were awarded $559,680 in compensatory damages. Because of a motion filed by Ford Motor Company the punitive damages awarded to Richard Grimshaw was later reduced to $3.5 million.
Ford Motor Company appealed to the court claiming there were several errors during the trial including the misconduct of counsel and the high punitive damage ward given to Richard Grimshaw. Both Grimshaw and the Gray family cross-appealed both addressing the punitive damage issue. May 29, 1981, The Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed a trial court judgment that the jury’s punitive damages award was reasonable.
During the trial there were four factors indentified that proved negligence and strict liability by Ford Motor Company. The design of the Pinto fuel system, the knowledge or failed crash tests by the Pinto prior to placing the car in the market, the Ford Motor Company cost benefit analysis, and the management’s decision to go forward