Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company

Product Liability Claims: Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company What is the official citation? Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Company, 9th Circuit, 849.F.2d 460 (1968). Facts On August 10, 1978, three teenage girls driving a 1973 Ford Pinto sedan stopped to refuel the car they were driving. After they got done filling up, the driver then loosely put the gas cap back on the tank which then by accident fell off as they drove back down U.S. Highway 33.

Looking to find the cap, the girls made a stop again directly in the right lane of the highway shoulder. They did this because there was not any kind of space on the highway for cars to be able to safely pull away from the roadway (Boyce, 2015). Not long after, a van that weighed over 400 pounds and improved with an unbending plank for a front bumper was moving at fifty five miles per hour and then hit the Pinto that had stopped.

The two of the girls died at the scene when the car exploded into flames. The driver was thrown out of the car and then died not long after in the hospital. Reviewing the van in a moment after the accident, the police were able to discover some open beer bottles, caffeine pills and marijuana all inside the car. (Boyce, 2015) The following proceedings were somewhat astonishing.

Founded on the truths of the case, it appeared that slightly one of an amount of parties could be accountable in a civil action or impeached illegally. The clear objective appeared to be the person that was driving of the van. It appears he could have been impeached for criminal killing or the families of the victims could have followed a civil action, in light of the fact the driver possessed numerous controlled matters at the time of the fate.

An additional possible participant open to a civil suit was the Indiana Highway department. It was the Indiana Highway department design which left no safe stopping place all over the Highway 33 where cars could were pulling over for various emergencies. In actual fact, the road was so unsafe that the Elkart County Citizens' Safety Committee had until that time written a letter to the department requesting that the road project be adapted in order to provide safe stopping place for emergencies ($128 Million -- Fuel System Fire, 2015).

It is likewise imaginable, the driver of the Pinto could have been originated to be neglectful for stopping a car in the middle of the main road. The primary amazement of the resultant litigation carne when Indiana state prosecuting attorney filed suit against Ford Motor Company for reckless homicide and criminal recklessness (Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 2013). The well-known and highly revealed legal battle was happening.

Some have contended the prosecution acted unfairly from the start, collecting and hiding proof from the defendant and hiding information about the disorder of the van driver. ($128 Million -- Fuel System Fire, 2015) Whether true or not, the next litigation caused injury that would take Ford years to get over.

Issues Must a risk/benefit analysis be utilized in states where a defect in design or manufacturing could lead to death or extremely bodily harm, for example in the Ford Pinto circumstances? The Rule There are fights both for and against such an examination / analysis. It is an economically capable method which has been acknowledged by courts for many years, nevertheless, juries may not continually agree, so businesses should take this into account.

Analysis Even though Ford had access to a new design which would lesson the choice of the Ford Pinto from blowing up, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have total $11 per car, even supposing it had done an analysis displaying that the new project would result in less deaths that were centered around 180. The business protected itself on the grounds that it utilized the acknowledged risk/benefit analysis in order to regulate if the financial prices of making the change were better than the societal advantage.

Founded on the statistics Ford was.