Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company
119 Cal.App.3d 757 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A manufacturer may be held liable for punitive damages in a strict products liability action if it markets a product with a known dangerous design defect, demonstrating a conscious disregard for the probable dangerous consequences to public safety in order to maximize corporate profits. Such conduct constitutes malice under California Civil Code section 3294.
Facts:
- In 1968, Ford Motor Company initiated an accelerated project to design the Pinto, aiming for a car weighing under 2,000 pounds and costing no more than $2,000, which resulted in styling decisions dictating engineering design.
- The Pinto's design placed the fuel tank behind the rear axle with only 9 to 10 inches of crush space and included a differential housing with exposed bolt heads that could puncture the tank upon rear impact.
- During development, Ford's internal crash tests on Pinto prototypes revealed that rear impacts at low speeds (approximately 21 mph) caused the fuel tank to rupture and leak fuel, failing proposed federal safety standards.
- Ford engineers knew that inexpensive design modifications, costing between $4 and $15 per vehicle, could have made the fuel tank significantly safer in a rear-end collision.
- High-level Ford management, including vice presidents, were aware of the crash test results and design vulnerabilities but made a deliberate decision to proceed with the Pinto's production without implementing the safety improvements, based on internal cost-benefit analyses that weighed repair costs against potential fatalities and injuries.
- In November 1971, the Gray family purchased a new 1972 Ford Pinto.
- On May 28, 1972, the Pinto, driven by Lilly Gray with 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw as a passenger, stalled on a freeway.
- Another vehicle rear-ended the stalled Pinto at a speed estimated between 28 and 37 mph, causing the Pinto's fuel tank to rupture and the car to erupt in flames, resulting in Gray's death and Grimshaw's severe, permanently disfiguring burns.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Grimshaw and the heirs of Lilly Gray (Grays) sued Ford Motor Company in California Superior Court (trial court).
- The trial court permitted Grimshaw's complaint to be amended to seek punitive damages but denied a similar motion by the Grays.
- Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, awarding Grimshaw $2,516,000 in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages, and the Grays $559,680 in compensatory damages.
- Ford moved for a new trial. The trial court denied the motion on the condition that Grimshaw consent to a remittitur reducing the punitive damages award to $3.5 million, which Grimshaw accepted.
- Ford (appellant) appealed from the amended judgment and the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Grimshaw (cross-appellant) appealed the order granting the conditional new trial (the remittitur). The Grays (cross-appellants) appealed the order denying their motion to seek punitive damages.
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 a manufacturer's conduct, in designing and marketing a product with known safety defects that pose a high probability of injury to consumers in order to save costs, constitute the 'malice' required to support an award of punitive damages under California Civil Code section 3294?
Opinions:
Majority - Tamura, Acting P. J.
Yes. A manufacturer's conduct of marketing a product with known design defects that create a high probability of injury, in conscious disregard for public safety, constitutes malice sufficient to support an award of punitive damages. The court found that 'malice' under Civil Code section 3294 does not require an intent to harm a specific person but includes conduct demonstrating a 'conscious disregard of the probability that the actor's conduct will result in injury to others.' The court held this standard applies to strict products liability cases. The evidence overwhelmingly showed that Ford, through its management, knew from its own crash tests that the Pinto's fuel system was dangerously defective and would expose consumers to serious injury or death in low-speed collisions. Ford made a deliberate and calculated decision to forego inexpensive corrective measures based on a cost-benefit analysis that balanced human lives against corporate profits. This 'institutional mentality' of 'callous indifference to public safety' constitutes the malice required for punitive damages, and corporate liability was established because high-level managerial employees were aware of the risks and approved the decision to proceed with the unsafe design.
Concurring - Kaufman, J.
Yes. Justice Kaufman concurs in the judgments and the ultimate disposition of each issue but does not subscribe entirely to the majority's reasoning on certain evidentiary matters, specifically regarding the testimony of former Ford employee Harley Copp, alleged violations of an order in limine, and the jury instructions on design defects.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly established that punitive damages are recoverable in strict products liability cases based on a design defect. The court's broad interpretation of 'malice' to include a 'conscious disregard for safety' set a new, influential standard for corporate accountability, particularly in cases where companies are shown to have balanced consumer safety against profits. By upholding a significant punitive award, Grimshaw sent a powerful message to manufacturers that prioritizing profits over known safety risks could lead to massive financial penalties beyond compensatory damages, thereby strengthening the deterrent function of tort law against corporate malfeasance.
Unlock the full brief for Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company