## Facts

- A 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback stalled on a freeway and was rear-ended, after which the vehicle ignited.
- The driver, Lilly Gray, suffered fatal burns; passenger Richard Grimshaw, age 13, suffered severe, permanently disfiguring burns.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Pinto’s fuel system design placed the fuel tank behind the rear axle with minimal rear structural reinforcement, creating a fire risk in rear impacts.
- Evidence showed Ford crash testing identified fuel tank rupture and leakage in rear-end collisions at relatively low speeds.
- Evidence also showed safer alternative designs were feasible and inexpensive, but Ford did not implement them before sale, citing cost, weight, and styling constraints.
- Plaintiffs pursued strict products liability (design defect) and negligence; Grimshaw sought punitive damages, and the Gray heirs sought to add punitive damages to their wrongful-death claims.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that the Pinto’s fuel system was defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous under strict products liability and negligence theories.
2. Whether punitive damages were authorized under California Civil Code § 3294 and constitutionally permissible in this products-liability context.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported a finding of “malice” and corporate responsibility for malice sufficient to sustain punitive damages against Ford.
4. Whether the trial court properly ordered remittitur of the punitive award and whether the remitted amount remained excessive.
5. Whether the trial court erred in denying the Gray heirs leave to amend their wrongful-death complaint to seek punitive damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed liability verdicts for plaintiffs on design-defect strict liability and negligence.
- The court upheld punitive damages for Grimshaw as reduced by the trial court to $3.5 million (from $125 million) and rejected Ford’s statutory and constitutional challenges.
- The court held substantial evidence supported a finding that Ford acted with conscious disregard for safety at the corporate decision-making level.
- The court found no reversible trial errors in challenged instructions, causation arguments, evidentiary rulings, or alleged attorney misconduct.
- The court left intact the trial court’s denial of the Gray heirs’ attempt to add punitive damages to the wrongful-death action, limiting their recovery to compensatory damages.

## Legal Principles

- A manufacturer may be liable for design defect where the product fails ordinary consumer safety expectations and/or where the risks outweigh benefits in light of feasible safer alternatives.
- In California, punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 are available upon proof of “malice,” including willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.
- Corporate malice may be shown through evidence that management knew of a serious safety hazard and deliberately chose not to correct it for non-safety reasons.
- A trial court may order remittitur as a condition to deny a new trial when a punitive award reflects passion or prejudice; appellate review gives weight to the trial court’s assessment and asks whether the award is so disproportionate as to be unreasonable.
- Constitutional review of punitive damages considers the reprehensibility of the conduct, the harm caused, and the defendant’s financial condition in assessing whether the amount is impermissibly excessive.

## Conclusion

The court sustained findings that the Pinto’s fuel system design was defective and that Ford’s internal knowledge of the fire risk, coupled with a decision not to adopt inexpensive safety changes, supported punitive damages for conscious disregard of occupant safety; it affirmed compensatory awards and the remitted $3.5 million punitive award, while leaving the wrongful-death plaintiffs limited to compensatory damages.


Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (Ct. App. 1981)