Chapter 8 grimshaw v ford motor

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.

In assessing whether alleged misconduct could have been cured by admonition, a reviewing court must bear in mind the wide latitude accorded counsel in arguing his case to a jury. The "relevant factors" which a jury may consider in applying the Barker "risk-benefit" standard include "the gravity of the danger posed by the challenged design, the likelihood that such danger would occur, the mechanical feasibility of a safer alternative design, the financial cost of an improved design, and the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design.

Chapter 8: Grimshaw V. Ford Motor Company

Gray Grays sued Ford Motor Company and others. La Macchia, 41 Cal. Inasmuch as the Pinto underwent substantial modifications during and thereafter, the reports may not have given a true picture of the earlier versions of the Pinto. During the course of the project, regular product review meetings were held which were chaired by Mr.

The Barker court referred to the two standards for evaluating design defect as "alternative tests" and in its suggested instruction phrased the tests in the disjunctive. The report states in part: Accordingly, I have consulted the Grimshaw record to learn what light it sheds on this question.

The related contention that application of Civil Code section to the instant case would violate the ex post facto prohibition of the federal Constitution because at the time it designed the Pinto Ford had no warning that its conduct could be punished under Civil Code section is equally without merit.

The idea for the Pinto, as has been noted, was conceived by Mr. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 5 Cal. Rathjens Cal.

Copp was fired for absenteeism and unsatisfactory performance. Sports Car Club of America, Inc. Belt 34 Cal. The matter first came up during redirect-examination of Mr. Copp concerning the reasons for his termination, in turn enabling plaintiffs to introduce prejudicial rehabilitation testimony not otherwise admissible.

Although higher than monetary penalties under government regulations, the punitive damages are to prevent firms in the future from disregarding safety and possible negative consequences. Ford argues that the study was irrelevant because it pertained to an entirely different car to be built four years later.

Grimshaw v Ford Motor Co [1981]

Bandhauer 66 Cal. The evidence was not that Mr.Chapter 8: Grimshaw V. Ford Motor Company Essay Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company Citation: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Cal.

Rptr. Facts: 1. Ford developed a new model, later to be known as the pinto, changing the design drastically.


Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (1981)

Grimshaw v. Ford case brief Grimshaw v. Ford FACTS • Richard Grimshaw (child) suffered severe burns on face and body in Ford Pinto accident • Jury finds in Grimshaw’s favor, awarding $2, for compensatory damages, and $ million in punitive damages from Ford • This is a LOT of money.

Trial judge reduced the awards significantly. Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company. Facts: Ford Pinto Case - Ford should have moved the gas tank. Under discovery provision of products liability statute of limitations, statute begins to run when claimant discovered, or in exercise of due diligence should have discovered, factual causal relationship between alleged defect in product and harm.

Grimshaw v Ford Motor Co [] Facts. A Ford Pinto burst into flames when another car crashed into the back of it after it stalled on a freeway; The passenger, Mr Grimshaw, suffered severe injuries; Evidence showed that Ford knew that this was a defect in the car during its design, but decided that it was cost prohibitive to rectify the issue.

RICHARD GRIMSHAW, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. CARMEN GRAY, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants. In Richard Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, the judgment, the conditional new trial order, and the order denying Ford's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of punitive damages are affirmed.

After the initiation of trial, the Legislature added a new article to title 3, part 4, chapter 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Chapter 8 grimshaw v ford motor
Rated 5/5 based on 1 review