Ford Pinto-Grimshaw and Gray v. Ford
The Pinto, a subcompact car made by Ford Motor Company, became infamous in the 1970s for bursting into flames if its gas tank was ruptured in a collision. The lawsuits brought by injured people and their survivors uncovered how the company rushed the Pinto through production and onto the market.In 1972, a Ford Pinto driven by Lilly Gray stalled as she entered a merge lane on a California freeway. Her Pinto was rear-ended by another car traveling about thirty miles per hour. The Pinto's gas tank ruptured, releasing gasoline vapors that quickly spread to the passenger compartment. A spark ignited the mixture, and the Pinto exploded in a ball of fire.Gray died a few hours later. Her passenger, thirteen-year-old Richard Grimshaw, suffered disfiguring burns and had to endure dozens of operations. He underwent surgery to graft a new ear and nose using skin from the few unscarred portions of his body.Grimshaw and Gray’s family filed a tort action against Ford, and the jury awarded not only $2.516 million to the Grimshaws and $559,680 to the Grays in damages for their injuries, but also $125 million to punish Ford for its conduct. Ford appealed the judgment, and the court reduced the award of punitive damages to $3.5 million. However, the court denied Ford's request to have the punitive damages award thrown out entirely, finding that Ford had knowingly endangered the lives of thousands of Pinto owners.Internal company documents showed that Ford secretly crash-tested the Pinto more than forty times before it went on the market and that the Pinto's fuel tank ruptured in every test performed at speeds over twenty-five miles per hour. This rupture created a risk of fire.Ford engineers considered numerous solutions to the fuel tank problem, including lining the fuel tank with a nylon bladder at a cost of $5.25 to $8.00 per vehicle, adding structural protection in the rear of the car at a cost of $4.20 per vehicle, and placing a plastic baffle between the fuel tank and the differential housing at a cost of $1.00 per vehicle. None of these protective devices were used.Adding to the pressure to ignore these safety costs was Lee Iacocca's stated goal that the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not to cost a cent over $2,000. So, even when a crash test showed that a one-pound, one-dollar piece of plastic prevented the gas tank from being punctured, the alternative was thrown out as extra cost and extra weight.When Ford was developing the Pinto, the company needed a low-priced car in a hurry to compete with Volkswagen and Japanese imports. Iacocca, a rising star at Ford due to his success with the Mustang, argued that Volkswagen and the Japanese were going to capture the entire American subcompact market unless Ford produced an alternative to the VW Beetle. As Executive Vice President and later as President of Ford, Iacocca was the driving force behind the program to produce the Pinto.The Pinto was rushed through production in just twenty-five months so it could be included in Ford’s 1971 line; the normal time span for a new car model was about forty-three months. During the accelerated production schedule, Ford became aware of these serious risks associated with the Pinto’s fuel tank but proceeded with its manufacturing schedule anyway. Company officials also decided to proceed even though Ford owned the patent on a much safer gas tank.Did anyone go to Iacocca and tell him the gas tank was unsafe? "Hell no," said an engineer who worked on the Pinto. "That person would have been fired. Safety wasn't a popular subject around Ford in those days. With Lee it was taboo." Iacocca used to say, "Safety doesn't sell."Why did the company delay so long in making these minimal and inexpensive improvements? Simply, Ford's internal "cost-benefit analysis," which places a dollar value on human life, said it wasn't profitable to make the changes sooner. Ford's cost-benefit analysis showed it was cheaper to endure lawsuits and settlements than to remedy the Pinto design.Ford knew about the risk, yet it paid millions to settle damages suits out of court and spent millions more lobbying against safety standards. Pinto was a best-selling subcompact. By 1977, new Pinto models incorporated a few minor alterations necessary to meet federal standards that Ford had managed to hold off for six years.The Grimshaw case was just one of more than one hundred lawsuits that were filed because of design flaws in the Pinto that resulted in fuel tank fires. Estimates by Mother Jones attribute between 500 and 900 burn deaths to Pinto crashes. These people would not have been killed or even seriously injured if the car had not burst into flames.The Grimshaw case sent a message to automakers that if they chose to ignore safety considerations, it would be at their own financial peril. This case helped push the automobile industry away from "safety doesn't sell" and toward emphasizing new safety features in their marketing.In 1978, following a damning investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford recalled all 1.5 million of its 1971–76 Pintos, as well as 30,000 Mercury Bobcats, for fuel system modification. Later that year, General Motors recalled 320,000 of its 1976 and 1977 Chevettes for similar fuel tank modifications. Burning Pintos had become a public embarrassment to Ford. Its radio spots had included the line: "Pinto leaves you with that warm feeling." Ford’s advertising agency, J. Walter Thompson, dropped that line.
Liebeck v. McDonalds
Stella Liebeck, the 79-year-old woman who was severely burned by McDonald’s coffee that she spilled in her lap in 1992, was unfairly held up as an example of frivolous litigation in the public eye. But the facts of the case tell a very different story. The coffee that burned Stella Liebeck was dangerously hot—hot enough to cause third-degree burns, even through clothes, in three seconds. Liebeck endured third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, including her inner thighs and genitals—the skin was burned away to the layers of muscle and fatty tissue. She had to be hospitalized for eight days, and she required skin grafts and other treatment. Her recovery lasted two years.Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000, but the company refused. McDonald’s offered Liebeck only $800—which did not even cover her medical expenses. When the case went to trial, the jurors saw graphic photos of Liebeck’s burns. They heard experts testify about how hot coffee should be and that McDonald’s coffee was 30 to 40 degrees hotter than coffee served by other companies. The jury learned that 700 other people—including children—had been burned before, yet the company did not change its policy of keeping coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees. The company knew its coffee was causing serious burns, but it decided that, with billions of cups served annually, this number of burns was not significant.The goal of the lawsuit was to try to right a wrong. “We knew, before the lawsuit was filed, that the temperature of the water was 190 degrees or so, and the franchise documents required that of the franchisee,” said Kenneth Wagner, an Albuquerque lawyer who represented Liebeck. Most home coffee makers produce coffee that is between 135 and 150 degrees, he added.Coffee that other restaurants serve at 160 degrees can also cause third-degree burns, but it takes 20 seconds, which usually gives the person enough time to wipe away the coffee before that happens.“Our position was that the product was unreasonably dangerous, and the temperature should have been lower,” Wagner said.The jurors awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages for her pain, suffering, and medical costs, but those damages were reduced to $160,000 because they found her 20 percent responsible. They awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. That amounted to about two days of revenue for McDonald’s coffee sales. The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, while noting that McDonald’s behavior had been “willful, wanton, and reckless.” The parties later settled for a confidential amount. According to news accounts, this amount was less than $500,000.Liebeck’s case got picked up by the media, and the story that got relayed was sometimes distilled to little more than: A woman made $2.7 million by spilling coffee on herself. The case became a punch line for late-night comedians and on Seinfeld.Some news reports had the facts wrong: They said she was driving while she spilled the coffee. In reality, her grandson was driving, with Liebeck in the passenger seat. They bought the coffee in the drive-through window and then parked the car. While parked, Liebeck put the coffee cup between her knees and removed the lid to add cream and sugar, and she spilled it. She was wearing sweatpants, which held the scalding liquid against her skin.Consumer advocates say the distorted narrative picked up speed because business interests and some lawmakers used it as a way to create a public belief that frivolous lawsuits were common and that jury verdicts were running amok, all in an effort to advance a tort reform agenda that limits consumers’ ability to hold wrongdoers accountable.In 2011, trial lawyer Susan Saladoff made a documentary, “Hot Coffee,” that exposed the true story and corrected some of the public perception of the case. But even after that, the myth of “the woman who got rich after abusing the court system over spilled coffee” persisted.Liebeck’s attorney Kenneth Wagner said Liebeck was concerned about the number of other people who had been burned by McDonald’s coffee—and that the number included children. States’ products liability laws contain instructions about warnings: They must be in a conspicuous place and must warn the product’s user of possibly dangerous features, Wagner said. “All the cup said was ‘contents hot,’” but that isn’t enough, Wagner noted—the warning should say how hot it is and that it could cause serious burns.Liebeck’s story, like many personal injury lawsuits, got started because of one person’s injuries but revealed a larger pattern of corporate behavior that put consumers at unreasonable risk.
Nader v. General Motors Corp.
Attempted Smear In November 1965, Ralph Nader published a book called Unsafe at Any Speed, which detailed safety problems with the Corvair, a popular General Motors automobile. Concerned that the book might jeopardize Corvair sales, General Motors hired private investigators to find evidence about Mr. Nader’s personal life that might discredit him.Fighting Back Mr. Nader filed a tort action against General Motors and claimed that the company’s actions violated his right to privacy. He claimed that the company’s detectives tapped his phone, used electronic devices to listen to his private conversations, made harassing phone calls, questioned his friends about his private life, and hired women to attempt to seduce himInvasion of Privacy The court ruled that Mr. Nader could sue General Motors for invasion of privacy based on his claims of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. The court decided that General Motors’ attempt to gather information could constitute an invasion of privacy if the information sought was confidential in nature and the means used were unreasonably intrusive.Turning the Tables General Motors eventually paid Ralph Nader $425,000 to settle the case out of court and issued a public apology to him. Mr. Nader used the money, after deducting his lawyer’s fees and other expenses, to finance projects that included investigating General Motors for safety, pollution, and other consumer concerns.
Cipollone v. Liggett Group
Rose Cipollone began smoking in 1942 when she was sixteen years old. Shortly before she died of lung cancer in 1984 at the age of fifty-eight, her husband sued the company that manufactured the cigarettes she smoked. In 1988, a jury in New Jersey awarded Mrs. Cipollone’s husband $400,000, finding that: Prior to 1966, the company had failed to warn of the health risks of smoking its products. (After 1966, cigarette packages included the federal health warning.) The company’s cigarette advertisements constituted an express warranty that its cigarettes were safe. The company had breached that warrantyAlthough the verdict was reversed on appeal in 1992 (holding that certain federal laws governed in place of state laws), the case was important because: For over thirty years, smokers had attempted to hold tobacco companies liable for their smoking-related injuries and this was the first time that a smoker had won a trial It was the first case in which internal tobacco company documents were produced to show that tobacco companies knew of the dangers of cigarettes well before the Surgeon General warned the public in 1964, and that tobacco companies had conspired to keep the public from learning about the health hazards of smokingIn Cipollone v. Liggett Group, before the jury reached its verdict, the court made a pre-trial ruling that the warning labels placed on cigarettes in 1966 precluded common law claims for injuries related to smoking after that date.With common law claims preempted by the court’s ruling, the Attorneys General of forty-six states and the District of Columbia devised another way to make tobacco companies accountable for health problems caused by smoking. They sued tobacco companies to get reimbursed for the costs that their states’ taxpayers incurred in caring for citizens suffering from chronic tobacco related illnesses.
United Novelty Co. v. Daniels
In 1949, nineteen-year-old William Daniels was using gasoline to clean coin-operated machines kept in a small room at the United Novelty Company in Mississippi. The room was kept warm by a gas heater with an open flame. He was killed when there was an explosion caused by a bizarre sequence of events.Unknown to Mr. Daniels, there was a rat inside the machine he was cleaning. The gasoline splashed on the rat and soaked its fur.In the words of the court, the rat "attempted to seek sanctuary beneath the heater where it overexposed itself and its impregnated coat, and returned in haste and in flames to its original hideout," which was the machine that Mr. Daniels had drenched in gasoline.The flaming rat’s return to the gasoline-drenched machine, combined with the gasoline vapors that filled the small room, caused an explosion that killed Mr. Daniels.William Daniels’ family sued the company for failing to enforce its own rules against using gasoline to clean machines and won. The court held that the company should have foreseen the risk of fire or explosion resulting from the use of gasoline. The fact that a foreseeable risk (an explosion) was caused in an unforeseeable way did not exempt the company from liability.If someone does something negligent, should he or she be responsible for all damages resulting from that negligence, even if the harm and the extent of the damages are wildly unforeseeable? What if the rat had rabies, was chased out because of the gasoline, and bit Daniels? Should the type of harm have to relate to the type of negligence?
Asbestos Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp.
Between 1940 and 1979, an estimated 27 million workers in the United States were exposed to significant amounts of asbestos dust. Millions have died or are currently sick with lethal asbestos related diseases, such as asbestosis and lung cancer.Fifty seven year old Clarence Borel filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against an asbestos manufacturer in 1969. He had contracted asbestosis and a malignant lung tumor as a result of working with asbestos insulation for over thirty years. He claimed that the manufacturer was at fault because it knew, or should have known, of the dangers of asbestos and should have warned about the hazards.Asbestos manufacturers had known of the risk to insulation workers since the 1930s and had engineered a cover up to conceal information about the risks of asbestos exposure in order to avoid tort liability. One manufacturer withheld the results of company medical examinations from employees who were found to be suffering from asbestos related diseases. Manufacturers also refused to allow safety inspections and surveys by government agencies unless the agencies agreed to make their findings and conclusions confidential. In addition, manufacturers pressured medical researchers to delay publication of their investigations and alter their conclusions.Clarence Borel died before the verdict in his case. His family was awarded $79,436 in damages. The jury was persuaded that the manufacturer should have known about risks to insulation workers and should have warned them. The manufacturer had a duty to keep up with scientific knowledge about risks from asbestos exposure, but failed to conduct workplace tests or surveys.Borel v. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. was the first successful suit by an insulation worker against asbestos manufacturers. The success of the Borel case inspired a large number of lawsuits and facilitated controlling hazardous materials in the workplace through product liability actions. Subsequently, hundreds of thousands of asbestos victims, mostly workers, filed lawsuits in courts across the country.
Toys That Kill: Cunningham v. Quaker Oats, Fisher Price Division
Iain Cunningham was just fourteen months old when his favorite toy robbed him of an independent life. In January 1973, Iain choked on a thumb sized figurine – part of Fisher Price’s Play Family School Bus – and suffered irreversible brain damage. Fisher Price had been informed of the choking risk six years earlier, but continued to market the toys as “safe” for oral-age children. Iain’s parents filed suit against Fisher Price in 1973, and fourteen years later accepted a $2.25 million settlement, at the time the largest ever against a toy company. But despite reports of injuries, one brain damaged child, and even six reported deaths associated with the toys, Fisher Price’s eventual “response” was to change its labelling and marketing strategy and to make the figurines larger to reduce the risk of choking. To this day, the original figurines have not been recalled, and likely remain in homes and schools across the country.
Dalkon Shield - A.H. Robins Company, Inc. v. 1000s of plaintiffs
Contraceptive Choice - A.H. Robins Company, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, first marketed the Dalkon Shield in 1971 as an alternative to birth control pills. The Dalkon Shield was a birth control device that was designed to fit into a woman’s uterus. It consisted of a piece of plastic with a string attached to the bottom.Design Defects - Because of the way it was designed, the string had the effect of trapping bacteria in the uterus, resulting in pelvic infections. The plastic also tended to perforate the uterus, and the device resulted in a much higher pregnancy rate than advertised.Death and Defects - Nevertheless, Robins marketed the product with misleading claims about its safety and performance. The pelvic infections caused by the Dalkon Shield caused thousands of women to suffer from chronic pain, and in many cases, infertility. At least fifteen women who became pregnant while using the Dalkon Shield died when the device triggered spontaneous septic abortions. Around 66,000 women (out of 110,000 who conceived while using the Dalkon Shield) suffered non-lethal spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, and stillbirths.
Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apt. Corp., 1970
Sarah Kline was a tenant in a 585-unit apartment building in Washington, DC. Ms. Kline had chosen that particular building partly because she was impressed by the existing security features, which included a doorman at the main entrance, an employee at the lobby desk, and two guards at the entrance to an adjoining parking garage.
Donald v. United Klans of America
Criminal Acts - On March 20, 1981, a young black man named Michael Donald was brutally beaten, had his throat cut, and was left hanging from a tree on a suburban street in Mobile, Alabama. Two white men who were members of the United Klans of America, Henry Hays and Tiger Knowles, were convicted of his murder.Civil Action - In 1984, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit for violation of the Civil Rights Act and for the commission of the torts of assault and battery on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, Michael’s mother, seeking $10 million in damages from the United Klans of America (UKA). To win, the plaintiff had to prove a civil conspiracy between the two killers, the local chapter of the UKA, and the UKA’s national organization.
McCormack v. Hankscraft Co., Inc., 1967
In November 1960, Andrea McCormack suffered third-degree burns over thirty percent of her body when she accidentally tipped over a vaporizer manufactured by Hankscraft Company, Inc.The child's mother had left her daughter unattended, relying on assurances in the company's manual that the device was tip-proof and safe to leave around children without supervision.
Carol Burnett v. National Enquirer
On January 29, 1976, after performing at the White House, the actress and comedienne Carol Burnett went to dinner at an upscale restaurant in Georgetown. A person who was at the restaurant told a tipster for the National Enquirer that Ms. Burnett had been rowdy in the restaurant. The tipster sold the story to the National Enquirer. On March 2, 1976, the following appeared in a gossip column in the National Enquirer:“In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger. Then, she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bit of her dessert. But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing. The guy wasn’t amused, and ‘accidentally’ spilled a glass of water over Carol’s dress’. The Enquirer responded to a complaint from Ms. Burnett by printing a retraction on April 6, 1976. However, Ms. Burnett was dissatisfied with it and decided to sue.
Galella v. Onassis
Privacy - From 1969 to 1972, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis was stalked and hounded by a freelance photographer named Ronald Galella. As the widow of the late President John F. Kennedy, she was a “public figure” and Mr. Galella went to extreme lengths to photograph her and her children as they went about their daily lives in New York City.Extreme Measures - Mr. Galella’s actions included: Jumping out from behind bushes in Central Park to photograph Mrs. Onassis and her son, John Kennedy Jr., while they were out riding bicycles, almost causing John Jr. to crash. Hiding behind a coat rack to photograph Mrs. Onassis inside a Chinese restaurant and arranging with restaurant workers to turn up the volume of the piped-in music to muffle the sound of his clicking camera. Dressing up an accomplice as Santa Claus to run up to Mrs. Onassis and pose with her, while Mr. Galella leaped around her, taking photographs and saying, “Come on, Jackie, be nice to Santa.” Circling around her in a speedboat while she swam in the ocean, coming so close that it appeared that his boat’s propeller might cut her legs. Taking rolls and rolls of pictures, never satisfied with just a few shots.
Anderson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 1996
The Pacific Gas & Electric Company had a gas compressor station for natural gas in Hinkley, California. To prevent the plant's cooling towers from corroding, the company treated them with a type of chromium called chromium-6, which has carcinogenic effects on human beings. Some of the cooling water escaped into the local drinking water supply.Residents of the town drank tap water containing chromium-6 for decades and believed that the water was responsible for a variety of illnesses, including: cancer, digestive problems, and breathing problems. In 1993, forty-seven plaintiffs (which later grew to 650) brought a class-action suit against the company and claimed that the town's water supply was contaminated by the company's disposal of the chromium.The utility company ultimately settled the case, paying $333 million in 1996. The company also agreed to an excessive cleanup of the environment, and to stop using chromium-6 as a rust inhibitor.The story of the case, and the woman who instigated the litigation, was the inspiration for the 2000 hit movie Erin Brockovich. The movie earned Julia Roberts, who starred in the title role, a Golden Globe and Academy Award.
Brown v. Kendall
George Kendall tried to stop two dogs from fighting by striking at them with a four-foot stick. When he raised the stick, he accidentally struck George Brown in the eye. The court determined that Mr. Kendall could not be held liable unless he acted carelessly or with the intent to do harm. This decision was one of the first and most important to recognize fault as the basis for liability in tort in the United States.
Byrne v. Boadle
A barrel rolled out of a shop window and struck a passerby. The evidence at trial did not show why the barrel came loose. The court determined that the person in control of the barrel could be found negligent anyway because this was the type of accident that would not have happened without some kind of carelessness. This case established that, under certain conditions, carelessness can be inferred from circumstances.
Sioux City v. Pacific R.R.
A six-year-old boy lost his leg while playing on a piece of machinery on railroad property. The case established the attractive nuisance doctrine, which means that landowners might be responsible for injuries to children if (1) they know or have reason to know the children are trespassing, (2) they fail to use reasonable care to protect the children from dangerous objects on their land, and (3) those objects are likely to attract children and then injure them.
MacPherson v. Buick
A jury found that a defective wheel on a new Buick automobile collapsed and caused the vehicle to overturn, injuring the driver, Donald MacPherson. The highest court in New York held that the driver could recover from the manufacturer due to negligence, even though he bought the car from a dealer and had no contractual relationship with the manufacturer. The basis for liability was not the contract, but rather the manufacturer's knowledge that vehicles with defective wheels could cause accidents.
T.J. Hooper v. Northern Barge Corp.
Barges towed by tugboats sank during a storm. The tugboats did not have working radio receivers capable of receiving a storm warning. In a case brought by the barge owners against the tugboat owners, the court held that a defendant might be liable even though he/she complied with industry custom, if a reasonable person would have taken the additional precautions. This rule has also been applied in ordinary negligence cases.
U.S. v. Carroll Towing
In 1947, the Anna C, a barge, broke loose from its moorings and sank. The claim was that the barge sank because no employees were on board to work the pumps. The ensuing tort case involving the Anna C, Carroll, and the operator of the pier, produced a classic test for determining carelessness/negligence. The test required the court to decide whether adequate measures were taken by the barge owner to prevent a risk of harm to the barge: If the foreseeable cost of having an employee on board the Anna C was less than the cost of the foreseeable damage that might result to the barge without an employee on board, then the barge owner would be considered legally at fault.
Greenman v. Yuba Power
William Greenman was using a combination saw, drill, and lathe when a piece of wood flew out of the machine and hit him in the forehead. This case recognized the doctrine of strict tort liability, which means that the manufacturer of a flawed product is responsible for injuries caused by the product even if the manufacturer was not negligent in manufacturing it.
Canterbury v. Spence
In 1972, Jerry Canterbury was paralyzed after undergoing back surgery. The surgeon, Dr. William Spence, did not tell him about risks associated with the operation. This case established the requirement that a doctor provide a patient with relevant information about the risks of an upcoming procedure so the patient can make an informed decision about whether to undergo the procedure.
Hoffman v. Jones
In 1973, William Jones was killed when his car collided with a truck. The evidence showed that the accident was partially his fault. Previously, under the doctrine of contributory negligence, a plaintiff was barred from any recovery if the plaintiff’s fault, no matter how slight, contributed to the accident. This case adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence, holding that an injured party can be partially compensated for the damages suffered when both parties’ carelessness contributed to the accident.
Tarasoff v. Regents
In 1976, a patient, Prosenjit Poddar, told his therapist, Dr. Lawrence Moore, that he intended to kill Tatiana Tarasoff. The therapist did not warn Tarasoff, who was later murdered by the patient. The case held that a therapist has a responsibility to use reasonable care to protect a third party whom the therapist knows is in danger from a violent patient, and that a jury might find that a failure to warn the third party constitutes negligence.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow
In 1993, William Daubert sued Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals for birth defects allegedly caused by Bendectin, an anti-nausea drug. At the trial, conflicting “expert” witnesses testified that Bendectin could, or could not, cause birth defects. The question, then, was what admissible evidence could be considered “expert.” The Supreme Court held that “the trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable,” and must be based on “scientific knowledge.”
