Ford Motor Co. v. Superior Court
175 Cal. Rptr. 39, 120 Cal. App. 3d 748, 1981 Cal. App. LEXIS 1875 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that precludes the recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death actions does not violate the equal protection clauses of the federal or state constitutions because the distinction between wrongful death claimants and other tort plaintiffs is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose.
Facts:
- The son of the real parties in interest was a passenger in a Ford Pinto automobile.
- The Pinto was struck from behind by another vehicle.
- Upon impact, the car burst into flames.
- The passenger was trapped inside the burning vehicle and died instantaneously.
- The parents alleged that Ford Motor Company maliciously and consciously disregarded public safety by marketing the Pinto with known dangerous design propensities.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of the deceased (real parties in interest) sued Ford Motor Company in California superior court (trial court) for wrongful death.
- The complaint included a cause of action seeking punitive damages.
- Ford Motor Company filed a demurrer to the punitive damages cause of action, arguing such damages are not recoverable in wrongful death actions.
- The superior court overruled the demurrer, allowing the claim for punitive damages to proceed.
- Ford Motor Company then petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate to compel the superior court to sustain the demurrer.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the California statutory scheme, which bars punitive damages in wrongful death actions while allowing them in personal injury or survival actions, violate the equal protection guarantees of the United States and California Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Christian, J.
No, the California statutory scheme does not violate the equal protection guarantees. The court held that the long-standing rule precluding punitive damages in wrongful death actions is constitutional. Applying the rational basis test, the court reasoned that wrongful death plaintiffs are not similarly situated to other tort plaintiffs because their right to sue is created by statute, not common law. The court identified two rational legislative objectives for the distinction: 1) to place a reasonable limit on recovery in wrongful death cases to prevent excessive awards, and 2) the deterrence and retribution purposes of punitive damages are best served when the tortfeasor pays them directly to the person who was physically harmed, not to their heirs.
Concurring - Rattigan, Acting P. J.
I concur in the judgment only. The conclusion is compelled by the recent holding in Georgie Boy Manufacturing, Inc. v. Superior Court, which found the statute constitutional. While I do not necessarily agree with the reasoning of that case or its characterization of prior law, I am bound to follow it in the absence of a contrary ruling from a higher court.
Dissenting - Poché, J.
Yes, the statutory scheme violates the equal protection guarantees. The distinction between heirs of a person who dies instantly and those whose decedent survives for a time is irrational and absurd. The majority's proffered rationales are baseless; there is no legislative history showing a fear of excessive recoveries, and the Legislature explicitly allows estates to recover punitive damages in survival actions, refuting the idea that damages must be paid 'to the victim personally.' This scheme illogically punishes a tortfeasor for causing injury or a slow death, but not for causing an instantaneous death, which lacks any conceivable rational legislative purpose.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms a controversial aspect of California tort law, upholding the legislative distinction between wrongful death and other tort actions regarding the availability of punitive damages. By applying the deferential rational basis test, the court reinforced the high bar for equal protection challenges to economic regulations that do not involve a suspect class or fundamental right. The sharp dissent, however, highlights the perceived logical inconsistencies in the statutory scheme, illustrating the ongoing tension between legislative policy choices and judicial review for rationality, and foreshadowing future debate on the issue.
