Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company
California Court of Appeals
119 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal.Rptr. 348, 1981
Facts: Ford motor company sold a For Pinto Hatchback to the Grays; the car was at fault
because it had not forgone any of the right procedures a car needs to go through before it is
sold. After six month of the purchase another car struck the pinto in the rear and burst into
flames causing the fatal death of Lilly Gray who was driving and seriously injured
Grimshaw who was a passenger. Ford had done cost-benefit analyses before marketing the
vehicle and the cost of redesigning the fuel tank, which may have caused the car to
explode, was weighed against possible liabilities if the design had remained unchanged.
The company came to a decision where the cost would exceed the liability costs likely to
arise from accidents. There was evidence that Ford could have corrected the design of the
car at minimal cost but decided to defer correction of the shortcomings by engaging in a
cost-benefit analysis balancing human lives and limbs against corporate profits.
Issue: Was Lilly Gray and Grimshaw’s accident caused by the design of the Ford Pinto?
Could the Ford Motor Company avoid the car from bursting into flames?
Decision: Yes. Ford was to blame for the accident they could have avoided it but chose to
ignore all the faults the Ford Pinto had.
Reason: The judgment awarding punitive damages was affirmed as reduced because the
reduced punitive damage award was reasonable and just, and was not excessive in light of
its deterrent purpose, appellant’s wealth, and the size of the compensatory awards. The
court also held that a rational justification existed for the legislative denial of the right to
seek punitive damages for wrongful death actions.