[2] A 1972 Pinto rear-end impact and fire in San Bernardino, California, resulted in the death of the driver Lilly Gray and severe injury to passenger Richard Grimshaw.
It is plausible to believe, then, that because of these costs, Ford decided not to improve the Pinto's design, knowing that its decision would increase the chances of the loss of consumer life.
Had the jury accepted Ford's speed estimate, there would not have been much of an issue of crashworthiness: for the plaintiffs' position throughout trial was that even a state-of-the-art fuel system could not maintain integrity in a 50 mile-per hour collision.
Lilly Gray, the driver of the Pinto, suffered severe burns to her entire body and resulted in her death by congestive heart failure on her way to the hospital.
The plaintiff's expert testified that the Pinto's gas tank was pushed forward upon impact and punctured by a flange or bolt on the differential housing.
"[13] The court found that a flange and a line of bolts on the Pinto's differential housing "were sufficient to puncture a gas tank driven forward upon rear impact.
"[14] Ford tested two production models of the Pinto and prototypes, some of which "were true duplicates of the design car," "to determine, among other things, the integrity of the fuel system in rear-end accidents.
[18] The courts found that, while "the standard of care for engineers in the industry" after a failed safety test was to "redesign and retest," and although fixes were inexpensive, "Ford produced and sold the Pinto to the public without doing anything to remedy the defects.
[21]The Pinto project team held regular product review meetings chaired and attended by Ford vice presidents.
[22] At an April, 1971 product review meeting, a report prepared by Ford engineers entitled "Fuel System Integrity Program Financial Review" was distributed and discussed, which referred to the crash tests of Ford vehicles and estimated the financial impact of design changes to comply with the proposed federal fuel system integrity standards.
[23] Harley Copp, a former Ford engineer and the executive in charge of the crash testing program, "testified that the highest level of Ford's management made the decision to go forward with the production of the Pinto, knowing that the gas tank was vulnerable to puncture and rupture at low rear impact speeds creating a significant risk of death or injury from fire and knowing that 'fixes' were feasible at nominal cost.
The appellate court "concluded that Ford has failed to demonstrate that any errors or irregularities occurred during the trial which resulted in a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal.
[23] The appellate court ruled that the report was highly relevant in that "A reasonable inference may be drawn from the evidence that despite management's knowledge that the Pinto's fuel system could be made safe at a cost of but $4 to $8 per car, it decided to defer corrective measures to save money and enhance profits.
'"[26] In Taylor v. Superior Court, the California Superior Court held that a conscious disregard of the safety of others is sufficient to meet the animus malus required for punitive damages awards, adding: "In order to justify an award of punitive damages on this basis, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his conduct, and that he wilfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences."
In a commercial context, the imposition of punitive damages deters the furtherance of "objectional corporate policies" and encourages the remedy of safety concerns that might otherwise go unchecked.
Through the results of the crash tests Ford knew that the Pinto's fuel tank and rear structure would expose consumers to serious injury or death in a 20- to 30-mile-per-hour collision.
There was substantial evidence that Ford's conduct constituted "conscious disregard" of the probability of injury to members of the consuming public...There is substantial evidence that management was aware of the crash tests showing the vulnerability of the Pinto's fuel tank to rupture at low speed rear impacts with consequent significant risk of injury or death of the occupants by fire.
There was testimony from several sources that the test results were forwarded up the chain of command;...While much of the evidence was necessarily circumstantial, there was substantial evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that Ford's management decided to proceed with the production of the Pinto with knowledge of test results revealing design defects which rendered the fuel tank extremely vulnerable on rear impact at low speeds and endangered the safety and lives of the occupants.
It exhibited a conscious and callous disregard of public safety in order to maximize corporate profits...Ford's tortious conduct endangered the lives of thousands of Pinto purchasers.
Lastly, the punitive award was sufficient to require Ford to take notice, rather than allowing the company to write it off as a mere business expense.