Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 119 Cal. App. 3d 757 (4th Dist. 1981)


Facts of the Case
On May 28, 1972, Mrs. Gray, accompanied by 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, set out in the Pinto from Anaheim for Barstow to meet Mr. Gray. As she approached the Route 30 off-ramp where traffic was congested, she moved from the outer fast lane to the middle lane of the freeway. Shortly after this lane change, the Pinto suddenly stalled and coasted to a halt in the middle lane. A car traveling immediately behind the Pinto was able to swerve and pass it but the driver of a 1962 Ford Galaxie was unable to avoid colliding with the Pinto. The Galaxie had been traveling from 50 to 55 miles per hour but before the impact had been braked to a speed of from 28 to 37 miles per hour. At the moment of impact, the Pinto caught fire and its interior was engulfed in flames. According to plaintiffs' expert, the impact of the Galaxie had driven the Pinto's gas tank forward and caused it to be punctured by the flange or one of the bolts on the differential housing so that fuel sprayed from the punctured tank and entered the passenger compartment through gaps resulting from the separation of the rear wheel well sections from the floor pan. By the time the Pinto came to rest after the collision, both occupants had sustained serious burns. When they emerged from the vehicle, their clothing was almost completely burned off. Mrs. Gray died a few days later of congestive heart failure as a result of the burns. Grimshaw managed to survive but only through heroic medical measures. He has undergone numerous and extensive surgeries and skin grafts and must undergo additional surgeries over the next 10 years. He lost portions of several fingers on his left hand and portions of his left ear, while his face required many skin grafts from various portions of his body. 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.

At trial Grimshaw was awarded over $2 million compensatory damages and $125 million punitive damages, while the heirs were awarded over $550,000 in compensatory damages. On defendant's motion for a new trial, the passenger was required to remit all but $3.5 million of the punitive award as a condition of denial of the motion.

Question
1.  Does the term "malice" in the California Punitive Damage statute (Civ. Code §3294) require an evil motive or intension to injure the person harmed?

2.  Did the trial judge act in error when he reduced the jury's punitive damage award from $125 million to $3.5 million?

Conclusion
1.  The court held there was ample evidence to support a finding of malice and corporate responsibility therefor, noting that through the result of crash tests defendant knew that the car's fuel tank and rear structure would expose consumers to serious injury or death in a low speed collision, and that defendant could have corrected the design defects at minimal cost but deferred corrections by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis balancing human lives and limbs against corporate profits. The court rejected defendant's contention that the jury should have been instructed that plaintiff had the burden of proving “malice” by “clear and convincing evidence.”

2.  The court rejected plaintiff's contentions that the punitive damages awarded by the jury were not excessive as a matter of law, that the specification of reasons was inadequate, and the trial court abused its discretion in cutting the award so drastically.