Grimshaw V. Ford Motor Company Essay

Facts1. track developed a new model, after to be known as the pinto, changing the design drastically. 2. carrefour discover that the fuel tanks position was in a vulnerable place and the motorcar failed to met crash golosh standards. 3. Ford was aware of the small hail to serve well the fuel tanks meet standards but refused to use them due to the slight hold water in production that might occur and approved production of the prototype. 4. A 1972 Ford Pinto was involved in a rear ending when it by luck stalled causing the care (presumably the fuel tank) to burst into flames. 5. A Mrs. Lilly Gray was died as result and her son 13 year-old Richard suffered severe and permanently disfiguring burns to his facial expression and entire body.Legal Procedure/History1. Grimshaw sued the Ford Motor gild for correctional redress. 2. Grimshaw destineed insurance in the heart and soul of about $3.5 million. 3. Ford appeals punitive damage. 4. Appeal is denied and decision to award punitive damages up held.Issues (Holdings)1. Did Ford exhibit malice which is necessary to establish in order to award punitive damages? (Yes) 2. The punitive damages awarded are too high for current Californian law, is this unlawful? (No)Reasoning1. Malice has been also see to mean a conscious snub of the probability that the actors point will result impairment to others. 2. Although higher than monetary penalties chthonic government regulations, the punitive damages are to prevent firms in the early from disregarding safety and possible negative consequences.Rule of Law1. The radical reason for having and awarding punitive damages is to punish and deter the conduct by wrongdoers and others.Your Response I completely agree with the decision.Questions1. Punitive damages were awarded due to the fact that Ford was found to name acted with malice in regards to their production of the Pinto. It has been also interpreted to mean a conscious disregard of the probability that th e actors conduct will result injury to others. And this is exactly what Ford did when they disregarded the fuel tank findings and refused to add the safety precautions to the fuel tank. Although higher than monetary penalties under government regulation, the punitive damages were high in order to set an example so that firms in the future would be deterred from disregarding safety and possible negative consequences when producing their products.2. Although the woo is higher than the saving in the short stock I take it would be to Fords benefit to take on the cost of adding the additional safety measures due to the fact that in the long run with more and more deaths attributed to what could be called the greedy, callous nature of Ford, sales could decrease. By absorbing the $137.5 million and allowing the public to know of Fords bring through (due to our concern over their safety) could possibly generate a good amount of future sales. On the other hand should the public discover that deaths could have been prevented public trust in the company could decline causing Fords sales to suffer the same fate.3. First the actual mystify of Holmes accident should be verified, if it was indeed due to the tires, then yes he should be allowed to appeal for a trial. 4. First of all, even though they bare the heaviest charge up (in my opinion) they werent the only ones responsible for the advancement of the Pintos design. Putting them in jail would just make way for Ford to replace them with others who could potentially make the same decision. It would also be sending the message to other firms officers to make sure that they arent the ones holding the lulu at the end of the day.This only put a few in the industry on guard. Having the entire company pay punitive damages causes the entire industry to be on guard and makes all within the company liable. On the other hand, having to pay such exorbitant amounts could potentially cause a company to go out of business or ca use them to downsize (fire employees to save money) effecting all that work there, whether or not they were involved in the design and decision making process. (I.e. they could fire janitors that work at their offices.)