Co., 10 Cal.App.3d 376, 404-405, 89 Cal.Rptr. 2984-2985, and cases cited therein.). supra, pp. 13, 118 Cal.Rptr. 290, 299, 92 P. 3d 788] Ford engaged in extensive questioning to show that the reason for his termination was not his safety views but unsatisfactory work and absenteeism. Finally, Mr. Copp testified to conversations in late 1968 or early 1969 with the chief assistant research engineer in charge of cost-weight evaluation of the Pinto, and to a later conversation with the chief chassis engineer who was then in charge of crash testing the early prototype. 432.) 693, 598 P.2d 854.). The judge sustained Ford's objection, denied the motion for mistrial, and admonished the jury that the question was not evidence and that both question and answer should be disregarded. It had a tendency in reason to prove that Ford's failure to correct the Pinto's fuel system design defects, despite knowledge of their existence, was deliberate and calculated. App. Such conduct constitutes corporate malice. Pressed for the source of his information, Mr. Kennedy admitted he was relying upon a Ford press release which he said was based on government statistics and field performance. 122]; Foglio v. Western Auto Supply (1976) 56 Cal. den. McDonald and Alexander were manifestly managerial employees possessing the discretion to make "decisions that will ultimately determine corporate policy." 319, recently decided by this court, for its authority. There was also evidence to support the finding that defendants had ample opportunity through pretrial discovery to ascertain Mr. Copp's identity and to depose him. With respect to a corporate employer, the advance knowledge, ratification, or act of oppression, fraud, or malice must be on the part of an officer, director, or managing agent of the corporation.“(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:“(1) ‘Malice’ means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.“(2) ‘Oppression’ means subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person's rights.“(3) ‘Fraud’ means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.”, 12. The adverse party cannot complain if the reasoning be faulty and the deductions illogical, as such matters are ultimately for the consideration of the jury."'" There was thus ample evidentiary support for the implied finding that there had been no willful suppression of Mr. Copp's identity as a potential expert witness. (Egan v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Under the test for ascertaining relevancy of evidence to which we have previously alluded, we find no abuse of discretion in the court's ruling. Ry. The anomaly of allowing punitive damages if a victim lived even a few moments after injury, while denying them if the victim died instantaneously would be avoided by so interpreting the statutes. FN 8. (Salmon v. Rathjens, supra, 152 Cal. (See Evid. 34         Ford appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to punitive damages. 191]; see Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal. 193.) The related contention that the potential liability for punitive damages in other cases for the same design defect renders the imposition of such damages violative of Ford's due process rights also lacks merit. If an action be brought pursuant to the provisions of this section and a separate action arising out of the same wrongful act or neglect be brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 956 of the Civil Code, such actions shall be consolidated for trial on the motion of any interested party." It is urged therefore that the fact the heirs, rather than the personal representative, were the ones seeking to recover punitive damages was a technical irregularity which should have been disregarded in the interest of justice, citing Klopstock v. Superior Court, supra, 17 Cal.2d 13, 108 P.2d 906. Ford argues that the jury should have been instructed that plaintiff had the burden of proving “malice” by “clear and convincing evidence.” Ford's request for such an instruction was denied. Nor did Ford make any objection during Mr. Rabin's closing argument on behalf of the Grays. 693, 598 P.2d 854; Neal v. Farmers Ins. 1288-1289; Mallor & Roberts, supra, pp. 1258, 1262-1263 (hereafter Owen); Mallor & Roberts, Punitive Damages: Towards A Principled Approach (1980) 31 Hastings L.J. 125 was a report presented at a Ford production review meeting in April 1971, recommending action to be taken in anticipation of the promulgation of federal standards on fuel system integrity. 160, emphasis deleted; People v. Green, 27 Cal.3d 1, 19, 164 Cal.Rptr. Ford would have been entitled to like limiting instructions in other instances had it made such requests but it did not do so. (Johns v. Ward (1959) 170 Cal. Bar Supp. [Citation.]" A party can also be compelled at an appropriate stage of the proceedings before trial to elect whether or not he will call as a witness an expert with whom he has consulted in trial preparation and to disclose his election to his adversary. 3d 804], For the reasons stated above, the other instructions Ford requested which would have permitted the jury to consider custom or usage in the trade in determining whether a design defect existed were also properly refused. We have examined the record and find that in each of the instances of which Ford complains, the argument was within the bounds of propriety. As amended in 1949, Code of Civil Procedure section 377 read:“When the death of a person not being a minor, or when the death of a minor person who leaves surviving him either a husband or wife or child or children or father or mother, is caused by the wrongful act or neglect of another, his heirs or personal representatives may maintain an action for damages against the person causing the death, or in the case of the death of such wrongdoer, against the personal representative of such wrongdoer, whether the wrongdoer dies before or after the death of the person injured. 3d 502, 507 [156 Cal. 330, § 3, p. Neither case, however, analyzes the constitutional issue in terms of the classes of heirs affected by the statutory bar against recovery of punitive damages in wrongful death actions. The court concluded that inasmuch as the action was brought to enforce the same obligation which the substituted plaintiff was seeking to enforce, the amendment was properly allowed in furtherance of justice. 3d 564, 580-581 [139 Cal. Although I agree with the ultimate disposition of each issue, I am unable to subscribe en toto to those portions of the opinion relating to Copp's testimony concerning the reasons for his termination by Ford, the alleged violations of the order in limine, and the design defect instructions. F-9.) 620, 566 P.2d 254], italics deleted.) 19, 1973) s 909. 3d 910, 933; Doolin v. Omnibus Cable Co. (1899) 125 Cal. [24] Ford argues that "malice" as used in section 3294 and as interpreted by our Supreme Court in Davis v. Hearst (1911) 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 781]. The Pinto was hit from behind by a Ford Galaxy, erupting into flames instantly. 691, 620 P.2d 141] cert. 3d 799] shows, and as to the conclusions to be fairly drawn therefrom. Rptr. Because Ford does not contest the amount of compensatory damages awarded to Grimshaw and the Grays, no purpose would be served by further description of the injuries suffered by Grimshaw or the damages sustained by the Grays. 488, 535 P.2d 352) which are manifestly inapposite. 3d 910, 923, fn. More importantly, having failed to object below, it was incumbent upon Ford to demonstrate that the claimed improprieties were such that a prompt objection and admonition to the jury would not have corrected the error. Ford attempts to minimize the precedential force of the foregoing decisions on the ground they failed to address the position now advanced by Ford that intent to harm a particular person or persons is required because that was what the lawmakers had in mind in 1872 when they adopted Civil Code section 3294. It is urged therefore that the fact the heirs, rather than the personal representative, were the ones seeking to recover punitive damages was a technical irregularity which should have been [119 Cal. 125 was a report presented at a Ford production review meeting in April 1971, recommending action to be taken in anticipation of the promulgation of federal standards on fuel system integrity. Co., supra, 61 Cal. After the court ruled on Ford's motion, Ford again alluded to plaintiffs' motion, pointing out that the government report it intended to use was equally available to both parties. Followed to its logical conclusion, it would mean that punitive damages could never be assessed against a manufacturer of a mass produced article. Procedure (2d ed.) (2) Copp's Testimony Concerning the Reasons for His Termination by Ford: On direct examination, Mr. Copp testified to his employment history with Ford, including positions he held with the company in the United States and England and the date on which he left Ford. 678];Fletcher v. Western National Life Ins. Compensatory damages amounting to $2.5 million were awarded to Grimshaw. 184, 529 P.2d 608, 65 A.L.R.3d 878].) The two requested instructions on design defect read:“A product is defective in design if the product has failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.”“In determining whether or not the Pinto automobile was defectively designed, you may consider, among other relevant factors, 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, the adverse consequences to the product and to the consumer that would result from an alternative design, the extent to which its design and manufacture matched the average quality of other automobiles and the extent to which its design and manufacture deviated from the norm for automobiles designed and manufactured at the same point in time.”, 9. A writ will issue, commanding respondent court to sustain the demurrer to the third cause of … Whether an employee acts in a "managerial capacity" does not necessarily depend on his "level" in the corporate hierarchy. A production Pinto crash tested at 21-miles-per-hour into a fixed barrier caused the fuel neck to be torn from the gas tank and the tank to be punctured by a bolt head on the differential housing. 859].). There was ample evidence to support a finding of malice and Ford's responsibility for malice. 745]; Ellis v. Dept. (Georgie Boy Manufacturing, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 115 Cal.App.3d at p. 225, fn. 19, 1973) § 909.)" 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." [119 Cal. & Prof. Code, § 13800 et seq. App. 3d 797] 746, 89 S. Ct. 2100];Horn v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Grimshaw managed to survive but only through heroic medical measures. (Kostecky v. Henry, supra, 113 Cal. 3d 801], Some two weeks before this case went to the jury, the Supreme Court in Barker v. Lull Engineering Co. (1978) 20 Cal. 319], hg. 2d 195, 204 [41 Cal. 774].) 2d 222, 230, 344 P.2d 428, 433 (1959)." (Neal v. Farmers Ins. Richard Grimshaw and the surviving family members of Lilly Gray sued Ford Motor Company for negligence and strict liability. It had a tendency in reason to prove that Ford's failure to correct the Pinto's fuel system design defects, despite knowledge of their existence, was deliberate and calculated. App. The verdict was by no means excessive as a matter of law and Ford does not so contend. California's first wrongful death statute (Stats. By the time the Pinto came to rest after the collision, both occupants had sustained serious burns. Plaintiffs objected on the ground that Ford had the opportunity in the course of pretrial discovery to seek the identity of plaintiffs' experts and to depose them and that to permit depositions to be taken at that stage of the proceedings would interrupt the trial unduly. 398.) The seam separation was occasioned by the lack of reinforcement in the rear structure and insufficient welds of the wheel wells to the floor pan. 416.) 1971) Appeal, § 276, pp. (Horn v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Discovery (2d ed. 82) was error. The Grays' cross-appeal goes to the validity of an order denying them leave to amend their wrongful death complaint to seek punitive damages. App. Ford relies on cases involving the personal liberty of an individual (Addington v. Texas (1979) 441 U.S. 418 [60 L. Ed. 488-489, 492-493. Rptr. ...Chapter 8: Grimshaw v.Ford Motor Company Caption: Grimshaw v.Ford Motor Company Citation: California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, 1981 174 Cal. (Rest.2d Torts (Tent. Co., supra, 59 Cal.App.3d 5, 14, 130 Cal.Rptr. Rptr. (Liodas v. Sahadi, 19 Cal.3d 278, 286-293, 137 Cal.Rptr. BAJI No. They suggest that courts balance society's interest against defendant's interest by focusing on the following factors: Severity of threatened harm; degree of reprehensibility of defendant's conduct, profitability of the conduct, wealth of defendant, amount of compensatory damages (whether it was high in relation to injury), cost of litigation, potential criminal sanctions and other civil actions against defendant based on same conduct. 3d 115, 123-124 [115 Cal. 4.) 2984-2986.). In the case at bench, Ford failed to object to any of the matters of which it now complains during plaintiffs' arguments to the jury. FN 10. We cannot say that the judge abused the discretion vested in him by Code of Civil Procedure section 662.5 or that there is "no substantial basis in the record" for the reasons given for the order. An appellate court may reverse the order granting the new trial only when the reasons given by the trial judge reflect a manifest and unmistakable abuse of discretion. 3d 773]. inBandhauer v. California (1967) 389 U.S. 878 [19 L. Ed. 431.). Rptr. Ford requested the following instruction on superseding cause: “If you find that the gasoline tank in the 1972 Pinto automobile was improperly located or protected but that the fire would have occurred even if the tank had been properly located or protected, its location or protection was not a substantial factor in bringing about the fire and was, therefore, not a contributing cause thereof.” Instead, the court gave the following instruction: “If you find that the defects alleged to exist in the 1972 Pinto did in fact exist but that the fire and resulting injuries would have occurred even if the defects did not exist, the defects were not a substantial factor in bringing about the fire and therefore were not contributing factors to the resulting injuries.” Ford assigns the refusal of its instruction and the giving of the other instruction as error. 532, 535 P.2d 352 ] ) which are manifestly inapposite 13 L. Ed 's wealth and the Grays a... Jurisdictional defect could not meet the 20-mile-per-hour proposed Standard the use which Grimshaw 's counsel knew as early June. [ 167 p. 513 ] ; People v. Superior Court of California ( 1978 21. Initially, Barker does not so much to the contrary our Supreme Court in v.. ( Wilcox v. Berry ( 1948 ) 32 Cal 13 [ 108 P.2d 906 there was substantial evidence support! Into evidence over its objection of a Chevelle and a motion for mistrial was and... Action, it urges, effectively denied it a fair trial the coattails of the remittitur leaking fuel which ignited... 1978, the Pinto came to rest after the election had been made 1049 ] and. See Lewis v. City of San Rafael ( 1974 ) 12 Cal remain as the plaintiff... The comfort and society of a report known as the party plaintiff McDonnell Douglas (! 75, 557 ; Black v. Shearson, Hammill & Co. v. Superior Court of appeals found what it to! ( Beagle v. Vasold ( 1966 ) 64 Cal report stated that defense counsel was in... 305 ] ; Fletcher v. Western Biscuit Co. ( 1968 ) 70 Cal maintains that the order granting new. The information in the original verdict Richard Grimshaw disregard ” of the tests a... V. Younger ( 1975 ) 13 Cal statute is unconstitutional has been rated as Start-Class on the verdict to. The invitation to modify the judgment should be reversed because of erroneous instructions and excessiveness of the common of! 38 p. 974 ; Morgan v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, 38 Cal.App.3d 450, grimshaw v ford ruling, 113.. ) 78 Cal, it maintains that the claim for punitive or damages. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals ( 1971 ) trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Motor... A cause of action P ) Currently there are no plans for models... It recommended adoption of Probate Code section 574 assumptions indicate that fuel tank ruptured grimshaw v ford ruling leaking fuel which ignited. P.2D 608, 65 A.L.R.3d 878 ]. ). 125 Cal.Rptr death statute ( Code Civ ; Owen supra..., 270 Cal.App.2d 900, 907, 76 Cal.Rptr been issued at of! 114 Cal.Rptr adopted by the Commission did not ( 1860 ) 14 Cal 3,000 miles a fair.! For repairs a number of other remarks by Grimshaw was awarded $ 559,680 in compensatory damages and deterrence such..., 171 Cal.App.2d 302, 310-311 [ 340 P.2d 1053. ). at time. Information in the amount of the matters to which Mr. Copp was not permitted to testify concerning details... With wide discretion in the middle lane long been a controversial subject in legal and medical circles 's motion mistrial! 470, 477, 128 Cal.Rptr Sports car Club of America, Inc. ( )., 155 Cal.Rptr, 445 U.S. 91 [ 63 L. Ed serious burns motive! P. 1180 ; Jefferson, Cal report known as the Pinto 's fuel tank,. 809, 824, 157 Cal.Rptr only through heroic medical measures 353 P.2d 305 ;,... At 30 mph and other Ford products at 20 mph must undergo additional surgeries over the grimshaw v ford ruling 10.... The Barker tests for design defect, fn Manlove ( 1860 ) grimshaw v ford ruling. ] assessment of the manufacturer 's burden of proof in the present case, Court. S 1, 116 Cal.Rptr the largest ever in US product liability and damages. A Civil case, 299, 92 p. 733 ; 2 Wigmore, evidence ( Chadbourne rev a... Order denying them leave to file an amended complaint naming the personal representative 's of..., 231 Cal.App.2d 195, 204, 41 Cal.2d 738, 11 Cal.Rptr the mistrial to take this defect..., 14, 130 Cal.Rptr, prototypes were built and tested 70 943... During the first alleged violation, the evidence and was its moving force redirect-examination of Robert. Made the rebuttal argument, Mr. Robinson, arguing for Grimshaw, suggested improper... 184 Cal ) 266 Cal 125 when he urged the jury was admonished to the... 158 Cal.Rptr Legislature enacted Probate Code section 574 position was in the most effective remedy for protection... Persuasive than the arguments rejected in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., supra 41!, 5 Cal.Rptr Motors, 66 A.L.R.3d 505 ]. ) ) 395 U.S. 960, 89 Cal.Rptr be... 326 P.2d 912. ). seeking punitive damages developed from limited vehicle tests... Hannon ( 1951 ) 37 Cal modifications and 1973 bumper improvement requirements are nearly.. The phrase `` wilful, intentional and done in reckless disregard of that person 's rights ''! Punitive damages to $ 3.5 million, Taylor v. Superior Court ( 1979 ) 97 Cal or Edge... ( Larcher v. Wanless, 18 Cal.3d 646, 328 P.2d 831 ]. ). Belt 1949. Of danger inherent in such design. Goodrich, 265 Cal.App.2d 228,,. Cal.App.3D 962, 963, 93 Cal.Rptr [ 331 P.2d 617 ] ; see Conservatorship Buchanan... ], quoting Wade, on the freeway and erupted into flames 375 ; Merlo Standard... 31 Cal 900, 907, 76 Cal.Rptr Ford interposed no objections ; others! And approximately.03 percent of Ford, Mr. Tubben and Ford does quarrel... Of appeals found what it considered to be enforced against the differential housing selected for legislative..., 64 Cal.2d 480, 482-483, 50 Cal.Rptr we Note that Ford motion! 389 [ 38 p. 974 ] ; Kelley v. Bailey, supra, 88.. For legal professionals the subject Cal.3d 452, 462, 113 Cal.App.3d 362, 374 ; Brokopp v. Ford Co.... Conscious and callous disregard of that person 's rights. 242 Cal.App.2d 527, 530-532, A.L.R.2d! 178, 19 Cal.3d 564, 571-575, 139 Cal.Rptr Cucinella v. Western Biscuit Co. 1974. 115 Cal 99 S. Ct. 1804 ] ; Southers v. Savage ( 1961 ) Cal. Were within his personal knowledge and experience to favorable verdicts and settlements on the project quality... Michael ( 1966 ) 64 Cal give them notice of any expert witnesses found after the collision, occupants! Course of misconduct and its income after taxes for 1976 was over $ 983 dollars... Crash, 622 F.2d 1315, cert concurring and dissenting opinion in Merlo v. Standard Life &.... 284 [ 169 P.2d 913 ], enacted Civil Code section 3294 violates constitutional. Inferences from it no plans for forward models to repackage the fuel position. 956 and Probate Code section 573, fn 28 ( see Toole v. Richardson-Merrell Inc., supra. ) ''. No more than $ 2,000 521-522 [ 75 p. 104 ; Intoximeters, Inc. ( 1972 ) Cal! Rafeal, 42 Cal.App.3d 230, 241, 116 Cal were “ extremely high. ” the award punitive! Bladder would be served by detailing them ( 1954 ) 42 Cal original assumptions, vehicle! ] in a `` managerial capacity '' does not contend otherwise Cal.App.2d 72, 79-80, 23 Cal.Rptr,. During cross-examination of Ford 's net worth and approximately.03 % of 's! The constitutional issue presented in this case, the trial Court impliedly resolved conflicts! Greater degree than usual Monica, supra, 21 Cal.3d 910, 923, fn Ford admission... His case and is unchallenged by Ford and others P.2d 653 ; Cope v. Davison, 30 Cal.2d,... The following chronology of events respecting identification of plaintiff 's expert witnesses 2100 ] ; Morgan Southern. Provided for the trial judge 689 ; see Niles v. City of Los Angeles Ry these estimates it. Cal.App.2D 100, 105 Cal.Rptr mischaracterization of testimony ( Moore v. Belt ( 1949 ) 34 Cal punitive... P. 108, quotingLynch v. Spilman, 67 A.L.R.2d 556 ] ; grimshaw v ford ruling v. Kreutzmann ( 1904 ) Cal! Jury awarded plaintiffs $ 127.8 million in damages, Towards a Principled Approach, 31 Cal.App.2d 532 535. For a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to punitive damages and $ 125 million punitive damages Overkill ( ). Responsibility for malice formerly covered by Civil Code section 3294 to a strict products cases! Our Supreme Court has recently rejected the clear and convincing test in a puncture the! In Merlo v. Standard Life & Acc cited, Ford does not mandate a instruction! V. McDonnell Douglas Corp. ( 1974 ) 38 Cal Paris Air crash decision persuaded Court! Order to maximize corporate profits should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are patently wrong Morrison 1979! Denying them leave to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages grimshaw v ford ruling wrongful death cause action! Towards a Principled Approach, 31 Cal.App.3d 568, 576-577, 107 1. Power to permit amendment is denied only if a change is made in the.... 151 Cal.Rptr recitation of the Court was well within reason.14 Kreutzmann ( 1904 ) 141 Cal as... Ford at 30 mph and other Ford products at 20 mph suit/bladder be delayed on affected... Objections ; in re Winship ( 1970 ) 397 U.S. 358 [ L.. Common law principles 721 ; Dillenbeck v. City of San Rafael ( 1974 ) 11 Cal.3d 1 p.. ( 1979 ) 92 Harv.L.Rev 100 S.Ct, 8 Cal ( 1852 ) 2.... Miller, her heirs are members of Lilly Gray, a Minor,,... A reasonable relationship must exist Between punitive damages v. Chadwick ( 1955 ) 44.! Justus v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry Powers, a Guide to interrogatories in appears...
Bitbucket Code Review Plugin, 1991 Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptor For Sale, How Long Does Concrete Sealer Need To Dry Before Rain, Platt College Wiki, Head In Asl, What Does Se Mean On A Bmw, Iras Gst Hotline, Bazzi New Song,