35
 GRIMSHAW v. FORD MOTOR CO. (1981) 119 CA3d 757 [Civ. 20095 Court of Appeals of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two May, 29, 1981] CARMEN GRAY, a Minor, etc., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. RICHARD GRIMSHAW, a Minor, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant. Opinion by Tamura, Acting P. J., with McDaniel, J., concurring. Separate concurring opinion by Kaufman, J. COUNSEL McCutchen, Black, Verleger & Shea, G. Richard Doty, Robert G. Damus, Judd L. Jordan and Harrington, Foxx, Dubrow & Canter for Defendant and Appellant. Hews, Munoz & Howard, Arthur N. Hews, Horvitz & Greines, Horvitz, Greines & Poster, Ellis J. Horvitz, Michelle Van Cleave, Gerald H. B. Kane, Jr., Rose, Klein & Marias, Byron M. Rabin and Leonard Sacks for Plaintiffs and Appellants. OPINION TAMURA, Acting P. J. A 1972 Ford Pinto hatchback automobile unexpectedly stalled on a freeway, erupting into flames when it was rear ended by a car proceeding in the same direction. Mrs. Lilly Gray, the driver of the Pinto, suffered fatal burns and 13-year-old Richard Grimshaw, a passenger in the Pinto, suffered severe and permanently disfiguring burns on his face and entire body. Grimshaw and the heirs of Mrs. Gray (Grays) sued Ford Motor Company and others. Following a six-month jury trial, verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company. Grimshaw was awarded $2,516,000 compensatory damages and $125 million punitive damages; the Grays {Page 119 Cal.App.3d 772} were awarded $559,680 in compensatory damages. fn. 1 On Ford's motion for a new trial, Grimshaw was required to remit all but $3 1/2 million of the punitive award as a condition of denial of the motion. Ford appeals from the judgment and from an order denying its motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to punitive damages. Grimshaw appeals from the order granting the conditional new trial and from the amended judgment entered pursuant to the order. The Grays have cross-appealed from the judgment and from an order denying leave to amend their complaint to seek punitive damages. Ford assails the judgment as a whole, assigning a multitude of errors and irregularities, including misconduct of counsel, but the primary thrust of its appeal is directed against the punitive damage award. Ford contends that the  puniti ve aw ard wa s statutorily unauthorized and constitutionally invalid. In addition, it maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of malice or corporate responsibility for malice. Grimshaw's cross-appeal challenges the validity of the new trial order and the conditional reduction of the punitive damage award. The Grays' cross-appeal goes to the validity of an order denying them leave to amend their wrongful death complaint to seek punitive damages. Facts Since sufficiency of the evidence is in issue only regarding the punitive damage award, we make no attempt to review the evidence bearing on all of the litigated issues. Subject to amplification when we deal with specific issues, we shall set out the basic facts pertinent to these appeals in accordance with established principles of appellate review: We will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the parties prevailing below, resolving all conflicts in their favor, and indulging all reasonable inferences favorable to them. (Aceves v. Regal Pale Brewing Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 502, 507 [156 Cal.Rptr. 41, 595 P.2d 619];Nestle v. City of Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920, 925 [101 Cal.Rptr. 568, 496 P.2d 480].) {Page 119 Cal.App.3d 773}

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co

  • Upload
    zichen

  • View
    18

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

fsdfsfdsfsf

Citation preview

  • GRIMSHAWv.FORDMOTORCO.(1981)119CA3d757

    [Civ.20095CourtofAppealsofCalifornia,FourthAppellateDistrict,DivisionTwoMay,29,1981]CARMENGRAY,aMinor,etc.,etal.,PlaintiffsandAppellants,v.FORDMOTORCOMPANY,DefendantandAppellant.RICHARDGRIMSHAW,aMinor,etc.,PlaintiffandAppellant,v.FORDMOTORCOMPANY,DefendantandAppellant.OpinionbyTamura,ActingP.J.,withMcDaniel,J.,concurring.SeparateconcurringopinionbyKaufman,J.

    COUNSEL

    McCutchen,Black,Verleger&Shea,G.RichardDoty,RobertG.Damus,JuddL.JordanandHarrington,Foxx,Dubrow&CanterforDefendantandAppellant.

    Hews,Munoz&Howard,ArthurN.Hews,Horvitz&Greines,Horvitz,Greines&Poster,EllisJ.Horvitz,MichelleVanCleave,GeraldH.B.Kane,Jr.,Rose,Klein&Marias,ByronM.RabinandLeonardSacksforPlaintiffsandAppellants.

    OPINION

    TAMURA,ActingP.J.

    A1972FordPintohatchbackautomobileunexpectedlystalledonafreeway,eruptingintoflameswhenitwasrearendedbyacarproceedinginthesamedirection.Mrs.LillyGray,thedriverofthePinto,sufferedfatalburnsand13yearoldRichardGrimshaw,apassengerinthePinto,sufferedsevereandpermanentlydisfiguringburnsonhisfaceandentirebody.GrimshawandtheheirsofMrs.Gray(Grays)suedFordMotorCompanyandothers.Followingasixmonthjurytrial,verdictswerereturnedinfavorofplaintiffsagainstFordMotorCompany.Grimshawwasawarded$2,516,000compensatorydamagesand$125millionpunitivedamagestheGrays{Page119Cal.App.3d772}wereawarded$559,680incompensatorydamages.fn.1OnFord'smotionforanewtrial,Grimshawwasrequiredtoremitallbut$31/2millionofthepunitiveawardasaconditionofdenialofthemotion.

    Fordappealsfromthejudgmentandfromanorderdenyingitsmotionforajudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdictastopunitivedamages.Grimshawappealsfromtheordergrantingtheconditionalnewtrialandfromtheamendedjudgmententeredpursuanttotheorder.TheGrayshavecrossappealedfromthejudgmentandfromanorderdenyingleavetoamendtheircomplainttoseekpunitivedamages.

    Fordassailsthejudgmentasawhole,assigningamultitudeoferrorsandirregularities,includingmisconductofcounsel,buttheprimarythrustofitsappealisdirectedagainstthepunitivedamageaward.Fordcontendsthatthepunitiveawardwasstatutorilyunauthorizedandconstitutionallyinvalid.Inaddition,itmaintainsthattheevidencewasinsufficienttosupportafindingofmaliceorcorporateresponsibilityformalice.Grimshaw'scrossappealchallengesthevalidityofthenewtrialorderandtheconditionalreductionofthepunitivedamageaward.TheGrays'crossappealgoestothevalidityofanorderdenyingthemleavetoamendtheirwrongfuldeathcomplainttoseekpunitivedamages.

    Facts

    Sincesufficiencyoftheevidenceisinissueonlyregardingthepunitivedamageaward,wemakenoattempttoreviewtheevidencebearingonallofthelitigatedissues.Subjecttoamplificationwhenwedealwithspecificissues,weshallsetoutthebasicfactspertinenttotheseappealsinaccordancewithestablishedprinciplesofappellatereview:Wewillviewtheevidenceinthelightmostfavorabletothepartiesprevailingbelow,resolvingallconflictsintheirfavor,andindulgingallreasonableinferencesfavorabletothem.(Acevesv.RegalPaleBrewingCo.(1979)24Cal.3d502,507[156Cal.Rptr.41,595P.2d619]Nestlev.CityofSantaMonica(1972)6Cal.3d920,925[101Cal.Rptr.568,496P.2d480].){Page119Cal.App.3d773}

  • TheAccident:

    InNovember1971,theGrayspurchasedanew1972PintohatchbackmanufacturedbyFordinOctober1971.TheGrayshadtroublewiththecarfromtheoutset.Duringthefirstfewmonthsofownership,theyhadtoreturnthecartothedealerforrepairsanumberoftimes.Theircarproblemsincludedexcessivegasandoilconsumption,downshiftingoftheautomatictransmission,lackofpower,andoccasionalstalling.Itwaslaterlearnedthatthestallingandexcessivefuelconsumptionwerecausedbyaheavycarburetorfloat.

    OnMay28,1972,Mrs.Gray,accompaniedby13yearoldRichardGrimshaw,setoutinthePintofromAnaheimforBarstowtomeetMr.Gray.ThePintowasthen6monthsoldandhadbeendrivenapproximately3,000miles.Mrs.GraystoppedinSanBernardinoforgasoline,gotbackontothefreeway(Interstate15)andproceededtowardherdestinationat6065milesperhour.AssheapproachedtheRoute30offrampwheretrafficwascongested,shemovedfromtheouterfastlanetothemiddlelaneofthefreeway.Shortlyafterthislanechange,thePintosuddenlystalledandcoastedtoahaltinthemiddlelane.Itwaslaterestablishedthatthecarburetorfloathadbecomesosaturatedwithgasolinethatitsuddenlysank,openingthefloatchamberandcausingtheenginetofloodandstall.AcartravelingimmediatelybehindthePintowasabletoswerveandpassitbutthedriverofa1962FordGalaxiewasunabletoavoidcollidingwiththePinto.TheGalaxiehadbeentravelingfrom50to55milesperhourbutbeforetheimpacthadbeenbrakedtoaspeedoffrom28to37milesperhour.

    Atthemomentofimpact,thePintocaughtfireanditsinteriorwasengulfedinflames.Accordingtoplaintiffs'expert,theimpactoftheGalaxiehaddriventhePinto'sgastankforwardandcausedittobepuncturedbytheflangeoroneoftheboltsonthedifferentialhousingsothatfuelsprayedfromthepuncturedtankandenteredthepassengercompartmentthroughgapsresultingfromtheseparationoftherearwheelwellsectionsfromthefloorpan.BythetimethePintocametorestafterthecollision,bothoccupantshadsustainedseriousburns.Whentheyemergedfromthevehicle,theirclothingwasalmostcompletelyburnedoff.Mrs.Graydiedafewdayslaterofcongestiveheartfailureasaresultoftheburns.Grimshawmanagedtosurvivebutonlythroughheroicmedicalmeasures.Hehasundergonenumerousandextensivesurgeriesandskingraftsandmustundergoadditionalsurgeriesoverthenext10years.Helostportionsofseveralfingersonhisleft{Page119Cal.App.3d774}handandportionsofhisleftear,whilehisfacerequiredmanyskingraftsfromvariousportionsofhisbody.BecauseForddoesnotcontesttheamountofcompensatorydamagesawardedtoGrimshawandtheGrays,nopurposewouldbeservedbyfurtherdescriptionoftheinjuriessufferedbyGrimshaworthedamagessustainedbytheGrays.

    DesignofthePintoFuelSystem:

    In1968,FordbegandesigninganewsubcompactautomobilewhichultimatelybecamethePinto.Mr.Iacocca,thenaFordvicepresident,conceivedtheprojectandwasitsmovingforce.Ford'sobjectivewastobuildacaratorbelow2,000poundstosellfornomorethan$2,000.

    Ordinarilymarketingsurveysandpreliminaryengineeringstudiesprecedethestylingofanewautomobileline.Pinto,however,wasarushproject,sothatstylingprecededengineeringanddictatedengineeringdesigntoagreaterdegreethanusual.Amongtheengineeringdecisionsdictatedbystylingwastheplacementofthefueltank.ItwasthenthepreferredpracticeinEuropeandJapantolocatethegastankovertherearaxleinsubcompactsbecauseasmallvehiclehasless"crushspace"betweentherearaxleandthebumperthanlargercars.ThePinto'sstyling,however,requiredthetanktobeplacedbehindtherearaxleleavingonly9or10inchesof"crushspace"farlessthaninanyotherAmericanautomobileorFordoverseassubcompact.Inaddition,thePintowasdesignedsothatitsbumperwaslittlemorethanachromestrip,lesssubstantialthanthebumperofanyotherAmericancarproducedthenorlater.ThePinto'srearstructurealsolackedreinforcingmembersknownas"hatsections"(twolongitudinalsidemembers)andhorizontalcrossmembersrunningbetweenthemsuchaswerefoundincarsoflargerunitizedconstructionandinallautomobilesproducedbyFord'soverseasoperations.TheabsenceofthereinforcingmembersrenderedthePintolesscrushresistantthanothervehicles.Finally,thedifferentialhousingselectedforthePintohadanexposedflangeandalineofexposedboltheads.Theseprotrusionsweresufficienttopunctureagastankdrivenforwardagainstthedifferentialuponrearimpact.

    CrashTests:

    DuringthedevelopmentofthePinto,prototypeswerebuiltandtested.Somewere"mechanicalprototypes"whichduplicatedmechanicalfeaturesofthedesignbutnotitsappearancewhileothers,referred{Page119

  • Cal.App.3d775}toas"engineeringprototypes,"weretrueduplicatesofthedesigncar.TheseprototypesaswellastwoproductionPintoswerecrashtestedbyFordtodetermine,amongotherthings,theintegrityofthefuelsysteminrearendaccidents.FordalsoconductedtheteststoseeifthePintoasdesignedwouldmeetaproposedfederalregulationrequiringallautomobilesmanufacturedin1972tobeabletowithstanda20mileperhourfixedbarrierimpactwithoutsignificantfuelspillageandallautomobilesmanufacturedafterJanuary1,1973,towithstanda30mileperhourfixedbarrierimpactwithoutsignificantfuelspillage.

    ThecrashtestsrevealedthatthePinto'sfuelsystemasdesignedcouldnotmeetthe20mileperhourproposedstandard.Mechanicalprototypesstruckfromtherearwithamovingbarrierat21milesperhourcausedthefueltanktobedrivenforwardandtobepunctured,causingfuelleakageinexcessofthestandardprescribedbytheproposedregulation.AproductionPintocrashtestedat21milesperhourintoafixedbarriercausedthefuelnecktobetornfromthegastankandthetanktobepuncturedbyaboltheadonthedifferentialhousing.Inatleastonetest,spilledfuelenteredthedriver'scompartmentthroughgapsresultingfromtheseparationoftheseamsjoiningtherearwheelwellstothefloorpan.Theseamseparationwasoccasionedbythelackofreinforcementintherearstructureandinsufficientweldsofthewheelwellstothefloorpan.

    TestsconductedbyFordonothervehicles,includingmodifiedorreinforcedmechanicalPintoprototypes,provedsafeatspeedsatwhichthePintofailed.Whererubberbladdershadbeeninstalledinthetank,crashtestsintofixedbarriersat21milesperhourwithstoodleakagefrompuncturesinthegastank.Vehicleswithfueltanksinstalledaboveratherthanbehindtherearaxlepassedthefuelsystemintegritytestat31milesperhourfixedbarrier.APintowithtwolongitudinalhatsectionsaddedtofirmuptherearstructurepasseda20mileperhourrearimpactfixedbarriertestwithnofuelleakage.

    TheCosttoRemedyDesignDeficiencies:

    Whenaprototypefailedthefuelsystemintegritytest,thestandardofcareforengineersintheindustrywastoredesignandretestit.ThevulnerabilityoftheproductionPinto'sfueltankatspeedsof20and30milesperhourfixedbarriertestscouldhavebeenremediedbyinexpensive"fixes,"butFordproducedandsoldthePintotothepublicwithoutdoinganythingtoremedythedefects.Designchangesthat{Page119Cal.App.3d776}wouldhaveenhancedtheintegrityofthefueltanksystematrelativelylittlecostpercarincludedthefollowing:Longitudinalsidemembersandcrossmembersat$2.40and$1.80,respectivelyasingleshockabsorbant"flaksuit"toprotectthetankat$4atankwithinatankandplacementofthetankovertheaxleat$5.08to$5.79anylonbladderwithinthetankat$5.25to$8placementofthetankovertheaxlesurroundedwithaprotectivebarrieratacostof$9.95percarsubstitutionofarearaxlewithasmoothdifferentialhousingatacostof$2.10impositionofaprotectiveshieldbetweenthedifferentialhousingandthetankat$2.35improvementandreenforcementofthebumperat$2.60additionofeightinchesofcrushspaceacostof$6.40.Equippingthecarwithareinforcedrearstructure,smoothaxle,improvedbumperandadditionalcrushspaceatatotalcostof$15.30wouldhavemadethefueltanksafeina34to38mileperhourrearendcollisionbyavehiclethesizeoftheFordGalaxie.If,inadditiontotheforegoing,abladderortankwithinatankwereusedorifthetankwereprotectedwithashield,itwouldhavebeensafeina40to45mileperhourrearimpact.Ifthetankhadbeenlocatedovertherearaxle,itwouldhavebeensafeinarearimpactat50milesperhourormore.

    Management'sDecisiontoGoForwardWithKnowledgeofDefects:

    TheideaforthePinto,ashasbeennoted,wasconceivedbyMr.Iacocca,thenexecutivevicepresidentofFord.ThefeasibilitystudywasconductedunderthesupervisionofMr.RobertAlexander,vicepresidentofcarengineering.Ford'sProductPlanningCommittee,whosemembersincludedMr.Iacocca,Mr.RobertAlexander,andMr.HaroldMacDonald,Ford'sgroupvicepresidentofcarengineering,approvedthePinto'sconceptandmadethedecisiontogoforwardwiththeproject.Duringthecourseoftheproject,regularproductreviewmeetingswereheldwhichwerechairedbyMr.MacDonaldandattendedbyMr.Alexander.Astheprojectapproachedactualproduction,theengineersresponsibleforthecomponentsoftheproject"signedoff"totheirimmediatesupervisorswhointurn"signedoff"totheirsuperiorsandsoonupthechainofcommanduntiltheentireprojectwasapprovedforpublicreleasebyVicePresidentsAlexanderandMacDonaldandultimatelybyMr.Iacocca.ThePintocrashtestsresultshadbeenforwardedupthechainofcommandtotheultimatedecisionmakersandwereknowntotheFordofficialswhodecidedtogoforwardwithproduction.{Page119Cal.App.3d777}

    HarleyCopp,aformerFordengineerandexecutiveinchargeofthecrashtestingprogram,testifiedthatthehighestlevelofFord'smanagementmadethedecisiontogoforwardwiththeproductionofthePinto,knowing

  • thatthegastankwasvulnerabletopunctureandruptureatlowrearimpactspeedscreatingasignificantriskofdeathorinjuryfromfireandknowingthat"fixes"werefeasibleatnominalcost.Hetestifiedthatmanagement'sdecisionwasbasedonthecostsavingswhichwouldinurefromomittingordelayingthe"fixes."

    Mr.Copp'stestimonyconcerningmanagement'sawarenessofthecrashtestsresultsandthevulnerabilityofthePintofuelsystemwascorroboratedbyotherevidence.AtanApril1971productreviewmeetingchairedbyMr.MacDonald,thosepresentreceivedanddiscussedareport(exhibit125)preparedbyFordengineerspertainingtothefinancialimpactofaproposedfederalstandardonfuelsystemintegrityandthecostsavingswhichwouldaccruefromdeferringevenminimal"fixes."fn.2ThereportreferstocrashtestsoftheintegrityofthefuelsystemofFordvehiclesanddesignchangesneededtomeetanticipatedfederalstandards.AlsoinevidencewasaSeptember23,1970,report(exhibit124)byFord's"ChassisDesignOffice"concerningaprogram"toestablishacorporate[Ford]positionandreplytothegovernment"ontheproposedfederalfuelsystemintegritystandardwhichincludedzerofuelspillageat20milesperhourfixedbarriercrashbyJanuary1,1972,and30milesperhourbyJanuary1,1973.Thereportstatesinpart:"The20and30mphrearfixedbarriercrasheswillprobablyrequirerepackagingthefueltanksinaprotectedareasuchasabovetherearaxle.ThisisbasedonmovingbarriercrashtestsofaChevelleandaFordat30mphandotherFordproductsat20mph.[]Currentlytherearenoplansforforwardmodelstorepackagethefueltanks.Testsmustbeconductedtoprovethatrepackagedtankswilllivewithoutsignificantlystrengtheningrearstructureforaddedprotection."ThereportalsonotesthatthePintowasthe"[smallest]carlinewithmostdifficultyinachievingcompliance."ItisreasonabletoinferthatthereportwaspreparedforandknowntoFordofficialsinpolicymakingpositions.{Page119Cal.App.3d778}

    ThefactthattwoofthecrashtestswererunattherequestoftheFordchassisandvehicleengineeringdepartmentforthespecificpurposeofdemonstratingtheadvisabilityofmovingthefueltankovertheaxleasapossible"fix"furthercorroboratedMr.Copp'stestimonythatmanagementknewtheresultsofthecrashtests.Mr.Kennedy,whosucceededMr.CoppastheengineerinchargeofFord'scrashtestingprogram,admittedthatthetestresultshadbeenforwardedupthechainofcommandtohissuperiors.

    Finally,Mr.Copptestifiedtoconversationsinlate1968orearly1969withthechiefassistantresearchengineerinchargeofcostweightevaluationofthePinto,andtoalaterconversationwiththechiefchassisengineerwhowastheninchargeofcrashtestingtheearlyprototype.Intheseconversations,bothmenexpressedconcernabouttheintegrityofthePinto'sfuelsystemandcomplainedaboutmanagement'sunwillingnesstodeviatefromthedesignifthechangewouldcostmoney.{Page119Cal.App.3d779}

    TheAction:

    Grimshaw(byhisguardianadlitem)andtheGrayssuedFordandothers.GrimshawwaspermittedtoamendhiscomplainttoseekpunitivedamagesbuttheGrays'motiontoamendtheircomplaintforalikepurposewasdenied.Thecaseswerethereafterconsolidatedfortrial.fn.3Grimshaw'scasewassubmittedtothejuryontheoriesofnegligenceandstrictliabilitytheGrays'casewenttothejuryonlyonthestrictliabilitytheory.

    Ford'sAppeal

    Fordseeksreversalofthejudgmentasawholeonthefollowinggrounds:(1)ErroneousrulingsrelatingtoMr.Copp'stestimony(2)othererroneousevidentiaryrulings(3)prejudicialmisconductbyplaintiffs'counsel(4)instructionalerrorsand(5)jurymisconduct.Ontheissueofpunitivedamages,Fordcontendsthatitsmotionforjudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdictshouldhavebeengrantedbecausethepunitiveawardwasstatutorilyunauthorizedandconstitutionallyinvalidandonthefurthergroundthattheevidencewasinsufficienttosupportafindingofmaliceorcorporateresponsibilityformalice.Fordalsoseeksreversalofthepunitiveawardforclaimedinstructionalerrorsonmaliceandproofofmaliceaswellasonthenumerousgroundsaddressedtothejudgmentasawhole.Finally,Fordmaintainsthatevenifpunitivedamageswereappropriateinthiscase,theamountoftheawardwassoexcessiveastorequireanewtrialorfurtherremittituroftheaward.

    Intheensuinganalysis(adnauseam)ofFord'swiderangingassaultonthejudgment,wehaveconcludedthatFordhasfailedtodemonstratethatanyerrorsorirregularitiesoccurredduringthetrialwhichresultedinamiscarriageofjusticerequiringreversal.

    I

  • TheTestimonyofHarleyCopp

    Mr.HarleyCopp,aformerFordengineeringexecutive,wasplaintiffs'principalwitnessonthesubjectofdefectsinthedesign,placement,andprotectionofthePinto'sgastankandonFordmanagement's{Page119Cal.App.3d780}decisiontoplacethecaronthemarketwithknowledgeofthedefects.FordassailsMr.Copp'stestimonyonthreebasicgrounds:(1)HeshouldnothavebeenpermittedtotestifyatallbecauseplaintiffsfailedtodisclosehisidentitybeforetrialandbecauseFordwasdeniedtheopportunitytodeposehim(2)heshouldnothavebeenallowedtotestifyduringdirectexaminationtothereasonforhisterminationbyFordand(3)heshouldnothavebeenpermittedtotestifyondirectexaminationconcerningthecontentsofreports,studies,andtestsonwhichhereliedinforminghisopinions.

    (1)RulingsPertainingtoCopp'sIdentityandRequeststoDeposeHim:

    Aftertrialhadbeenunderwayforamonth,defensecounselmadeanoralmotionforthedisclosureoftheidentityof"anydisgruntledFordemployeeorformeremployee"whomplaintiffsintendedtocallasawitnessandfortheopportunitytodeposehimbeforehewascalledasawitness.PlaintiffsobjectedonthegroundthatFordhadtheopportunityinthecourseofpretrialdiscoverytoseektheidentityofplaintiffs'expertsandtodeposethemandthattopermitdepositionstobetakenatthatstageoftheproceedingswouldinterruptthetrialunduly.Plaintiff'scounsel(Mr.Hews)statedthatheintendedtocallaformerFordemployeebutdeclinedtorevealhisidentityexcepttothecourtoutsidethepresenceofdefensecounsel.Thejudgeconductedanunreportedincamerainquiryofplaintiffs'counselfollowingwhichthejudgedictatedanaccountoftheproceedingsandorderedthetranscriptsealed.Thereafter,thecourtdeniedFord'smotion,stating:(1)Thatthewitnesswhomplaintiffsintendedtocallwascontactedafterplaintiffshadrespondedtodefendants'lastrequestforalistofplaintiffs'expertwitnesses(2)defendantshadampleopportunitytolearnthewitness'nameandtodeposehimthroughpretrialdiscoveryprocedureand(3)thattopermitadepositionatthatstageofthetrialwouldinterrupttheprogressofthetrialunduly.Forddidnotobjecttotheincameraproceedingsorrequestdisclosureofthemattersrevealedtothejudge,didnotaskforanopportunitytorebutanythingthatmighthavebeensaid,anddidnotobjecttothecourt'sconsiderationofmattersdisclosedduringtheincameraproceedinginmakingitsultimateruling.fn.4{Page119Cal.App.3d781}

    AfterplaintiffscalledMr.Coppasawitness(withoutobjection)andduringthecourseofhisdirectexamination,FordtwicemovedorallytodeposeMr.Coppbeforehecontinuedwithhistestimony.ThecourtdeniedthemotionsasuntimelyandonthefurthergroundthatFordwouldnotbeprejudicedbylackofprioropportunitytodeposethewitnessinlightofitsbroadpowertocrossexaminehim.

    [1a]FordcontendsthatthecourtshouldhavebarredMr.Coppfromtestifyingbecauseofplaintiffs'failuretodisclosehisidentityduringpretrialdiscoveryor,attheveryleast,thatthecourtabuseditsdiscretionindenyingFord'smotiontodeposehimbeforehetestified.Thecontentionslackmerit.

    [2]Apartycanbecompelledtoidentifytheexpertswhomhecontemplatescallingaswitnessesandsuchexpertsmay,upongoodcauseshown,bedeposedbytheotherparty.(Bollesv.SuperiorCourt(1971)15Cal.App.3d962,963[93Cal.Rptr.719]ScotsmanMfg.Co.v.SuperiorCourt(1962)242Cal.App.2d527,530532[51Cal.Rptr.511]Swartzmanv.SuperiorCourt(1964)231Cal.App.2d195,204[41Cal.Rptr.721]Louisell&Walley,ModernCal.Discovery(2ded.1972)5.12,p.337.)Apartycanalsobecompelledatanappropriatestageoftheproceedingsbeforetrialtoelectwhetherornothewillcallasawitnessanexpertwithwhomhehasconsultedintrialpreparationandtodisclosehiselectiontohisadversary.(Sandersv.SuperiorCourt(1973)34Cal.App.3d270,279280[109Cal.Rptr.770].)Ifthepartyelectstocalltheexpertasawitness,theopposingpartyshouldbegrantedareasonabletimewithinwhichtoconductappropriateadditionaldiscovery.(Id.,atp.279.)

    Willfulfailuretodisclosetheidentityofanexpertwhomthepartyintendstocallasawitnessmayjustifyexclusionofhistestimony.(Thorenv.JohnstonWasher(1972)29Cal.App.3d270,274275[105Cal.Rptr.276]CodeCiv.Proc.,2019,subd.(b),2034,subd.{Page119Cal.App.3d782}(b).)However,whereitappearsthatadecisiontocallanewanddifferentexpertismadeaftertheresponsetoacompelledelectionandwasnotwillfullydelayedinviolationofthespiritofthediscoveryrules,thefailuretoexcludesuchexpert'stestimonyisnotanabuseofdiscretion.(Rangelv.GraybarElectricCo.(1977)70Cal.App.3d943,948[139Cal.Rptr.191]seeDeyov.Kilbourne(1978)84Cal.App.3d771,780,fn.4[149Cal.Rptr.499]Powers,AGuidetoInterrogatoriesinCaliforniaPractice(1975)48So.Cal.L.Rev.1221,12561257.)Ithasbeensaidthatinterrogatoriesshouldnotbepermittedtobeusedasatrap"pinningapartyforalltimetoananswerintendedto

  • reflectonlythatparty'sknowledgeasofthedateoftheanswer."(Id.,atp.949seeSingerv.SuperiorCourt,54Cal.2d318,324326[5Cal.Rptr.697,353P.2d305]Powers,supra.)

    Inthepresentcase,theevidencedisclosesthefollowingchronologyofeventsrespectingidentificationofplaintiff'sexpertwitnesses.Plaintiffs'responsestoFord'sdemandforthenamesoftheexpertsandtocodefendantWilsonFord'smotiontocompelelectionwerefiledbeforeJanuary10,1977.Theresponseslistedtheexpertsandadded:"PlaintiffispresentlyengagingintrialpreparationwhichincludesextensiveadditionalinvestigationintoFordPinto,whichmayleadtoadditionalexpertwitnesses."Plaintiffs'counselmetMr.CoppforthefirsttimeonJanuary18,1977,andlearnedofhispotentialavailabilityasawitness.

    Whethertherehasbeenawillfulfailuretodisclosetheidentityofanexpertwitnessisamattertobedeterminedbythetrialcourtanditsfindingwillnotbedisturbedunlessitissolackinginevidentiarysupportorissoarbitraryastoconstituteanabuseofdiscretion.(Rangelv.GraybarElectricCo.,supra,70Cal.App.3d943,948seealsoFairfieldv.SuperiorCourt(1963)246Cal.App.2d113,118121[54Cal.Rptr.721].)[1a]Thetrialcourtfoundthatplaintiffs'responsestoFord'sdemandforalistoftheexpertwitnessesandtocodefendant'smotionforelectioncontainedafull,accurate,andcompletelistofpersonsthenknowntoplaintiffswhowouldbecalledthatthepersonwhoseidentityFordwasseekingwas"acquired"byplaintiffsafterdefendant'slastrequestforalistofexpertsandthatFordhadampleopportunitythroughpretrialdiscoverytolearnthenameofplaintiffs'additionalexpertandtodeposehim.Asweexplainbelow,thereissubstantialevidentiarysupportforthosefindings.

    Thatthefirstcontactbetweenplaintiffs'attorneysandMr.CoppoccurredonJanuary18,1977,wasconfirmedbyMr.Copp'stestimony{Page119Cal.App.3d783}andwasandisunchallengedbyFord.Plaintiffs'responsemadeitcleartodefendantthattheexpertslistedwerethosethenknowntoplaintiffs,thatplaintiffswerecontinuinganationwideinvestigationandthatotherexpertsmightbediscovered.Thus,defendantcanbesaidtohavebeenonnoticethatplaintiffs'investigatoryworkmightuncoveradditionalwitnesses.Defendant'sbriefsuggeststhatplaintiffshadaburdentogivethemnoticeofanyexpertwitnessesfoundaftertheelectionhadbeenmade.However,becausedefendant'sinterrogatorieswerenotcontinuing,plaintiffshadnoobligationunderthethenexistinglawtoupdatethelistasadditionalexpertswerefoundwhomightbecalledaswitnesses.fn.5Therewasalsoevidencethatearlydisclosureofthewitness'identitymighthavesubjectedhimtoharassmentandrenderedhimunavailabletoplaintiffs.TherewasthusampleevidentiarysupportfortheimpliedfindingthattherehadbeennowillfulsuppressionofMr.Copp'sidentityasapotentialexpertwitness.TherewasalsoevidencetosupportthefindingthatdefendantshadampleopportunitythroughpretrialdiscoverytoascertainMr.Copp'sidentityandtodeposehim.TherewasindicationthatFord'scounselknewasearlyasJune1977thatMr.Coppmightbeawitnessforplaintiffs.ThatFord'soralmotionwasforthedisclosureofanyformer"disgruntled"Fordemployeewhomightbecalledasplaintiffs'witnessandthatFord'smotionwasmadeonlyafterandinapparentresponsetoonemadebyplaintiffsforthedisclosureofapossibleFordwitnesssuggestthatFordknewtheidentityofthewitness.fn.6{Page119Cal.App.3d784}

    [3]Fordcomplainsthat,becausethetrialcourt'srulingwasbasedonevidencetakenattheincameraproceedingfromwhichFordwasexcluded,therulingviolatedFord'sdueprocessrightandconstitutedreversibleerrorperse.Noauthoritiesarecitedtosupportthiscontentionandwefindnone.Byitsfailuretoobjecttotheincameraproceeding,ortothecourt'sconsiderationofmattersrevealedincamera,ortorequestanopportunitytorespondthereto,Fordwaiveditsrighttoassertthattheproceedingswereimproper.Proceduralirregularitiesorerroneousrulingsinconnectionwiththereliefsoughtordefensesassertedwillnotbeconsideredonappealwhereatimelyobjectioncouldhavebeenmadebutwasnotmadeinthecourtbelow.(Bardessonov.Michels(1970)3Cal.3d780,794[91Cal.Rptr.760,478P.2d480,45A.L.R.3d717]Nannyv.RubyLightingCorp.(1952)108Cal.App.2d856,859[239P.2d885].6Witkin,Cal.Procedure(2ded.1971)Appeal,276,pp.42644265.)TherationaleforthisrulewasaptlyexplainedinSommerv.Martin(1921)55Cal.App.603atpage610[204P.33](quotingthefollowingpassagefrom1HayneonNewTrialandAppeal,103):"'Inthehurryofthetrialmanythingsmaybe,andare,overlookedwhichwouldreadilyhavebeenrectifiedhadattentionbeencalledtothem.Thelawcastsuponthepartythedutyoflookingafterhislegalrightsandofcallingthejudge'sattentiontoanyinfringementofthem.Ifanyotherruleweretoobtain,thepartywouldinmostcasesbecarefultobesilentastohisobjectionsuntilitwouldbetoolatetoobviatethem,andtheresultwouldbethatfewjudgmentswouldstandthetestofanappeal.'"

    [4]TurningtoFord'smotionstodeposeMr.Coppbeforehecontinuedwithhisdirecttestimony,wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthecourt'srulings.Therighttoconductdiscovery"within30daysbeforetrial"iswithinthe

  • sounddiscretionofthetrialcourtandinexercisingitsdiscretionthecourtisrequiredtotakeintoconsiderationthenecessityandreasonsforsuchdiscovery,thediligenceorlackofdiligenceofthepartyseekingsuchdiscoveryandhisreasonsfornothavingcompleted{Page119Cal.App.3d785}hisdiscoverypriorto30daysbeforetrial,whetherpermittingsuchdiscoverywillpreventthecasefromgoingtotrialonthedaysetorotherwiseinterferewiththetrialcalendarorresultinprejudicetoanyparty,andanyothermatterrelevanttotherequest.(Cal.RulesofCourt,rule2224Witkin,Cal.Procedure(2ded.1971)Trial,49,p.2889.)ThecourtwasjustifiedindenyingFord'smotionsforitsfailuretoexerciseduediligenceandbecausethegrantingofthemotionswouldhavecausedanundueinterruptionintheorderlyprogressionofthetrial.

    (2)Copp'sTestimonyConcerningtheReasonsforHisTerminationbyFord:

    Ondirectexamination,Mr.CopptestifiedtohisemploymenthistorywithFord,includingpositionsheheldwiththecompanyintheUnitedStatesandEnglandandthedateonwhichheleftFord.Hetestifiedhewasforcedtotakeanearlyretirementand,overdefendant'sobjection,waspermittedtoexplainthatthiswasbecausehespokeoutonmattersofsafety.ThecourtruledthatevidenceofthecircumstancesunderwhichMr.CoppleftFordwasadmissiblebecauseitboreuponhiscredibilityandwasnecessarytoenablethejurytounderstandandevaluatehistestimony.

    [5a]Fordmaintainsthattheevidencewasinadmissibleondirectexaminationbecausethewitness'credibilityhadnotyetbeenchallengedandthatFordwasprejudicedbytheerroneousrulingbecauseitwascompelledtocrossexamineMr.Coppconcerningthereasonsforhistermination,inturnenablingplaintiffstointroduceprejudicialrehabilitationtestimonynototherwiseadmissible.Fordreliesonthegeneralpropositionthatevidencetosupportthecredibilityofawitnessisinadmissibleuntiltherehasbeenanattempttoimpeachthatuntilawitness'credibilityhasbeenattacked,thereisnothingtorehabilitate.(Peoplev.Sweeney(1960)55Cal.2d27,39[9Cal.Rptr.793,357P.2d1049]Witkin,Cal.Evidence(2ded.1966),1276,p.1180Jefferson,Cal.EvidenceBenchbook,28.14,pp.488489,492493.SeeEvid.Code,790,791.)

    Ifthecourt'srulingwasproperunderanytheory,however,itmustbeupheld.[6]Arulingcorrectinlawwillnotbedisturbedonappealsimplybecausegivenforawrongreasonifrightonanyapplicabletheoryoflaw,itmustbesustained.(D'Amicov.BoardofMedicalExaminers{Page119Cal.App.3d786}(1974)11Cal.3d1,19[112Cal.Rptr.786,520P.2d10].)Theprincipleappliestoevidentiaryrulings.(Wilcoxv.Berry(1948)32Cal.2d189,192[195P.2d414]Daveyv.SouthernPacificCo.(1897)116Cal.325,329[48P.117]Southersv.Savage(1961)191Cal.App.2d100,105[12Cal.Rptr.470].)[5b]Assumingthatenhancingthewitness'credibilitywasnotavalidindependentbasisforthecourt'sruling,theevidencewasneverthelessadmissible(1)becauseitwenttothewitness'qualificationasanexpertand(2)becauseitwasrelevanttotheissueofmaliceonGrimshaw'sclaimforpunitivedamages.

    [7]Apartyofferinganexpertwitnessisentitledtoexaminehim"astohisqualificationsandexperiencesothatthefullweighttobeaccordedhistestimonywillbecomeapparent."(Moorev.Belt(1949)34Cal.2d525,532[212P.2d509]Salmonv.Rathjens(1907)152Cal.290,299[92P.733].)Suchexamination"shouldnotbelimitedbynarrowandstringentrules."(Eblev.Peluso(1947)80Cal.App.2d154,156157[181P.2d680].)[5c]Itwasthereforewithinthecourt'sdiscretiontopermitplaintiffstoelicitfromMr.CopptestimonyastowhenheleftFordandwhy.EvidenceastowhyheleftFordwaspartofthebackgroundinformationconcerningthewitness'professionalexperiencewhichwouldassistthefactfinderindeterminingtheweighttobegiventohistestimony.Whiletheevidencemayalsohavetendedtoenhancethewitness'credibility,thepurposeofpermittingapartyproducinganexperttoquestionhimastohiseducationalbackground,training,andexperienceinhisareaofexpertiseisnotonlytoestablish"thecompetencyofthewitnesstothesatisfactionofthecourt,butalsoforthepurposeofmakingplainthestrengthofthewitness's[sic]groundsofknowledgeandthereasonfortrustinghisbelief."(Salmonv.Rathjens,supra,152Cal.290,2992Wigmore,Evidence(Chadbournerev.1979)562,subd.(2),655,pp.759760,884886.)Therefore,thefactthattheevidencemayhaveenhancedthewitness'credibilitydidnotrenderitinadmissible.

    Additionally,thecircumstancessurroundingMr.Copp'sterminationwererelevanttotheissueofmaliceontheclaimforpunitivedamages."[A]llrelevantevidenceisadmissible"exceptasotherwiseprovidedbystatute.(Evid.Code,351.)Relevantevidencemeansevidence"havinganytendencyinreasontoproveordisproveanydisputedfactthatisofconsequencetothedeterminationoftheaction."(Evid.Code,210.){Page119Cal.App.3d787}

    [8]Thegeneraltestofrelevancyiswhethertheevidencetendslogically,naturallyandbyreasonableinference

  • toestablishamaterialfact.(Peoplev.Warner(1969)270Cal.App.2d900,907[76Cal.Rptr.160].)"Evidencetends'inreason'toproveafactwhen'theevidenceofferedrendersthedesiredinferencemoreprobablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence.'[Citations.]Evidenceisrelevantnotonlywhenittendstoproveordisprovetheprecisefactinissuebutwhenittendstoestablishafactfromwhichtheexistenceornonexistenceofthefactinissuecanbedirectlyinferred.[Citations.]Thetrialcourtisvestedwithwidediscretionindecidingrelevancy."(Id.,atpp.907908,italicsdeletedPeoplev.Green(1980)27Cal.3d1,19[164Cal.Rptr.1,609P.2d468]Cramerv.Morrison(1979)88Cal.App.3d873,879[153Cal.Rptr.865].)[9]Circumstantialevidenceisadmissibletoestablishmotive,knowledgeorstateofmindsincedirectevidenceonsuchfactsisrarelyavailable.(Nealv.FarmersIns.Exchange(1978)21Cal.3d910,923,fn.6[148Cal.Rptr.389,582P.2d980]Berterov.NationalGeneralCorp.(1974)13Cal.3d43,66[118Cal.Rptr.184,529P.2d608,65A.L.R.3d878].)ThefactthatFordfiredahighrankingengineeringexecutiveforadvocatingautomotivesafetywasindicativeofFordmanagement'sattitudetowardssafetyinautomobileproductionandwasthusrelevanttotheissueofmalice.IthadatendencyinreasontoprovethatFord'sfailuretocorrectthePinto'sfuelsystemdesigndefects,despiteknowledgeoftheirexistence,wasdeliberateandcalculated.Ford'sargumentthatfiringMr.Coppin1976forspeakingoutonsafetydoesnotreasonablytendtoshowthatForddisregardedsafetyindesigningthePintosomefiveyearsearlierlacksmerit.TheevidencewasnotthatMr.Coppfirsttookhisstandonsafetyin1976hetestifiedthathehadbeenoutspokenonautosafetyduringallthemanyyearsheworkedforFord.

    FordcomplainsthatsinceMr.Coppwaspermittedtotestifytothecircumstancessurroundinghistermination,FordwascompelledtocrossexaminehimtoshowthatthereasonforhisdismissalwasunexplainedabsencesfromworkandunsatisfactoryworkperformancethatifthecourthadnotpermittedMr.Copptogivehisversionofthereasonfortermination,FordwouldhavehadlittleornoreasontoexaminehimabouthisretirementandplaintiffswouldnothavebeenabletoadducerehabilitationtestimonyhighlyprejudicialtoFord.TherecorddisclosesthatMr.CopptestifiedonlybrieflyconcerningthecircumstancesofhisearlyretirementfromFordbutthatoncrossexamination{Page119Cal.App.3d788}Fordengagedinextensivequestioningtoshowthatthereasonforhisterminationwasnothissafetyviewsbutunsatisfactoryworkandabsenteeism.Plaintiffsthereafterintroducedrehabilitatingtestimony.Mr.CoppwaspermittedtotestifytohiscampaignforautomotivesafetyduringhisentireperiodofemploymentwithFord,includingaconversationhehadwithHenryFordIIonthesubject,histestimonybeforeaUnitedStatesSenateCommitteeconcerningtheChevroletCorvair'sunsafedesignandhisroleinexposingFord'sconductinconnectionwiththeemissioncontrolprogram.Fordarguesthatbutforthecourt'serroneousinitialrulinganditsconsequentcrossexaminationonthereasonforMr.Copp'sretirement,thedamagingrehabilitationevidencewouldnothavecomein.Sincewefindnoerrorinthecourt'sinitialrulingandsinceFordhasnotadvancedanyindependentreasonwhytherehabilitatingevidenceshouldhavebeenexcluded,Ford'scomplaintconcerningtheprejudicialnatureofthatevidencemustberejected.

    (3)Mr.Copp'sTestimonyConcerningMattersReliedUponinFormingHisOpinion:

    FordcomplainsthatthecourterroneouslypermittedMr.Copptotestifyondirectexaminationtothecontentsoftheliterature,reportsandtestsonwhichhereliedinforminghisopinions.Fordcitesfivesuchinstances:Testimonyconcerningexamplesofvehiclesmeetinga50mileperhourmovingbarriertestwithoutfueltankruptureandfiretestimonythatfieldreportsprovedovertheaxlefueltankpositiontobesuperiorindesigntestimonyaboutaproposalUnitedStatesSteelCo.madetoFordconcerningabladderwithinatanktestimonythathebasedhisopinionthatabladderwithinatankwasfeasiblein1969and1970onthefactthatFordhadstartedtestingsuchadevicein1967andthatUnitedStatesSteelhadsuccessfullybuiltsuchatankthatwithstoodupto30milesperhourfixedbarriercrashtestswithoutpuncturingandtestimonythatduringhiscareerhehadseentheresultsofseveralhundredovertheaxletestspublishedinjournalsandthattherewasnotonereportedfueltankfailureinanyofthemregardlessofthespeedofthetests.FordcontendsthatinthecitedinstancesMr.Coppwaspermittedtotestifyconcerningdetailsofthehearsaymattersonwhichhereliedinforminghisopinion.

    [10]Whileanexpertmaystateondirectexaminationthemattersonwhichhereliedinforminghisopinion,hemaynottestifyastothe{Page119Cal.App.3d789}detailsofsuchmattersiftheyareotherwiseinadmissible(Peoplev.LaMacchia(1953)41Cal.2d738,744745[264P.2d15],overruledonothergroundsinCountyofLosAngelesv.Faus(1957)48Cal.2d672,680[312P.2d680]Bailyv.Kreutzmann(1904)141Cal.519,521522[75P.104]Intoximeters,Inc.v.Younger(1975)53Cal.App.3d262,273[125Cal.Rptr.864]Furtadov.MontecelloUnifiedSch.Dist.(1962)206Cal.App.2d72,7980[23Cal.Rptr.476]Peoplev.Nahabedian(1959)171Cal.App.2d302,310311[340P.2d1053].)Therulerestsontherationalethatwhileanexpertmaygivereasonsondirect

  • examinationforhisopinions,includingthemattersheconsideredinformingthem,hemaynotundertheguiseofreasonsbringbeforethejuryincompetenthearsayevidence.(Peoplev.LaMacchia,supra,41Cal.2d738.)Ordinarily,theuseofalimitinginstructionthatmattersonwhichanexpertbasedhisopinionareadmittedonlytoshowthebasisoftheopinionandnotforthetruthofthemattercuresanyhearsayprobleminvolved,butinaggravatedsituations,wherehearsayevidenceisrecitedindetail,alimitinginstructionmaynotremedytheproblem.(Evid.Code,352,355seeConservatorshipofBuchanan(1978)78Cal.App.3d281,289[144Cal.Rptr.241]Kelleyv.Bailey(1961)189Cal.App.2d728,738[11Cal.Rptr.448]seealsoAdkinsv.Brett(1920)184Cal.252,258[193P.251].)Thecourtisnotrequiredtogivesuchlimitinginstructionssuasponte.(Evid.Code,355Kellyv.Bailey,supra,189Cal.App.2d728,738seee.g.,Peoplev.Richards(1976)17Cal.3d614,618619[131Cal.Rptr.537,552P.2d97].)Mr.Coppwasnotpermittedtotestifyconcerningthedetailsofthehearsaymattersonwhichhereliedinforminghisopinion.

    Intheinstantcase,therecordshowsthatinatleastthreeoftheinstancescitedbyFord,itmadenoobjectiononthegroundnowassertedonappeal.Inaddition,mostofthematterstowhichMr.Coppreferredwerewithinhispersonalknowledgeandexperience.WhenMr.Coppwaspermittedtotestifytothemattersonwhichhebasedhisopinionthatthebladderwithinatankwasfeasible,thejudgegavethejuryaproperlimitinginstructionatFord'srequest.Fordwouldhavebeenentitledtolikelimitinginstructionsinotherinstanceshaditmadesuchrequestsbutitdidnotdoso.Finally,innoinstancewasMr.Copppermittedtoreadthereportsordocumentstowhichhereferredorrelatetheircontentsinspecificdetail.Inlightofthesecircumstances,weconcludethatthecourtdidnotcommitreversibleerrorinthecitedinstanceswheretheexpertwaspermittedtotestifytothemattersheconsideredinforminghisopinions.{Page119Cal.App.3d790}

    II

    OtherEvidentiaryRulings

    FordcontendsthatthecourterroneouslyadmittedirrelevantdocumentaryevidencehighlyprejudicialtoFord.Wefindthecontentiontobewithoutmerit.

    (1)ExhibitNo.125:

    ExhibitNo.125wasareportpresentedataFordproductionreviewmeetinginApril1971,recommendingactiontobetakeninanticipationofthepromulgationoffederalstandardsonfuelsystemintegrity.Thereportrecommended,interalia,deferralfrom1974to1976oftheadoptionof"flaksuits"or"bladders"inallFordcars,includingthePinto,inordertorealizeasavingsof$20.9million.Thereportstatedthatthecostoftheflaksuitorbladderwouldbe$4to$8percar.ThemeetingatwhichthereportwaspresentedwaschairedbyVicePresidentHaroldMacDonaldandattendedbyVicePresidentRobertAlexanderandoccurredsometimebeforethe1972Pintowasplacedonthemarket.Areasonableinferencemaybedrawnfromtheevidencethatdespitemanagement'sknowledgethatthePinto'sfuelsystemcouldbemadesafeatacostofbut$4to$8percar,itdecidedtodefercorrectivemeasurestosavemoneyandenhanceprofits.Theevidencewasthushighlyrelevantandproperlyreceived.(SeeEvid.Code,210,351.)

    Ford'scontentionappearstobeaddressednotsomuchtotheadmissibilityofexhibitNo.125buttotheusewhichGrimshaw'scounselmadeofitinhisargumenttothejury.FordcomplainsthatwhileexhibitNo.125recommended"that$100millionbespent,"Grimshaw'scounselarguedthatthereportshowed$100millionwouldbesavedandurgedthejurytoawardthatsumaspunitivedamages.ItisnotclearthatexhibitNo.125recommendedthat"$100millionbespent"itstatesthatovertheperiod1973to1976thecostestimatestomeetthefederalstandardswouldbe$100million.NoristherecordclearthatGrimshaw'scounselwasreferringtoexhibitNo.125whenheurgedthejurytoawardpunitivedamagesinthesumof$100million.Inanyevent,Fordfailedtoobjecttocounsel'sargumentasamisstatementoftheevidence.[11]Intheabsenceofanobjectionandarequestforadmonitionwheretheadmonitionwouldhavecuredtheharm,theissuemaynotberaisedonappeal.(Hornv.Atchison,T.&S.F.Ry.Co.,61Cal.2d602,610{Page119Cal.App.3d791}[39Cal.Rptr.721,394P.2d561],cert.den.AtchisonT.&S.F.Ry.Co.v.Horn(1964)380U.S.909[13L.Ed.2d736,85S.Ct.892]Brokoppv.FordMotorCo.(1977)71Cal.App.3d841,859860[139Cal.Rptr.888,93A.L.R.3d537].)

    (2)ExhibitsNos.95and122:Fordurgesthatareport(exhibitNo.95)andamotionpicturedepictingFord'scrashtestNo.1616(exhibitNo.

    122)shouldhavebeenexcludedbecausetheywereirrelevantandhighlyprejudicialtoFordinthattheyshowed

  • thatina21.5mileperhourcrashofa1971Pintoprototypeintoafixedbarrierthefillerneckofthefueltankseparatedallowingfluidtospillfromthetank,whereasnosuchfillerneckseparationoccurredintheGrayvehicle.Underthetestforascertainingrelevancyofevidencetowhichwehavepreviouslyalluded,wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthecourt'sruling.NotonlydidthefillerneckseparationshowthevulnerabilityofthePintofuelsystemina21.5mileperhourfixedbarriertest,butcrashtestNo.1616,asFordconceded,resultedinapunctureofthefueltankfromtheexposedboltheadsonthedifferentialhousing.Thus,theexhibitsshowedthedefectinthePinto'sgastanklocationanddesign,thehazardcreatedbytheprotrusionsonthedifferentialhousing,and,inaddition,theyservedasevidenceofFord'sawarenessofthosedefects.ExhibitsNos.95and122wereproperlyreceivedinevidence.

    (3)ExhibitNo.82:

    Fordcontendsadmissionintoevidenceoveritsobjectionofareportknownasthe"Chiaramemorandum"(plaintiffs'exhibitNo.82)waserror.Thereport,datedFebruary1971,wasaFordengineeringstudyofthecostsofaproposalforafueltankovertheaxleandatankwithinatankforaFordMercuryautomobile.Fordarguesthatthestudywasirrelevantbecauseitpertainedtoanentirelydifferentcartobebuiltfouryearslater.Mr.Copptestified,however,thattheinformationinthestudycouldbeappliedequallytothePinto.Thestudyshowedthatthecostofplacingthegastankovertheaxlewithprotectiveshieldwasabout$10andthatatankwithinatankwithpolyurethanefoambetweentankswouldhavecostabout$5.Whethertheprobativevalueoftheevidencewasoutweighedbythedangerofundueprejudicewasamatterforthetrialjudge.(Evid.Code,352e.g.,Cramerv.Morrisonsupra,88Cal.App.3d873,884885Celliv.SportsCarClubofAmerica,Inc.(1972)29Cal.App.3d511,522[105{Page119Cal.App.3d792}Cal.Rptr.904].)Inthecircumstances,wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthejudge'sdetermination.

    (4)ExclusionofEvidenceProfferedbyFord:

    [12]Fordcontendsthattwoitemswhichitattemptedtointroduceintoevidencewereerroneouslyexcluded.OnewasastatisticalstudyfromanaccidentdatabankmaintainedbytheStatePatroloftheStateofWashington.FordsoughttointroducetheevidencetoshowthatproportionatelythePintoproducednogreaterchanceofinjuryordeathfromfirethanothervehicles.Thecourtsustainedplaintiff'sobjectionstotheevidenceonthegrounditsprobativevaluewasatbestminimalwhereastheprejudicialeffectwassubstantial.Inaddition,thecourtfeltthattheadmissionoftheevidencewouldconfusethejuryandwouldresultinundueconsumptionoftime.(SeeEvid.Code,352Cramerv.Morrison,supra,88Cal.App.3d873,884885Celliv.SportsCarClubofAmerica,Inc.,supra,29Cal.App.3d511,522.)Wefailtofindanabuseofdiscretioninthecourt'sruling.

    First,theexcludedstudyencompassedonlyasmallnumberofcollisionswhichresultedinPintofires,thusrenderingthesamplingopentomisleadinginferences.Furthermore,thereliabilityofthefieldreportsfromwhichthedatawereextractedandfedintothecomputerwasquestionablebothbecauseofthelackofadequateinstructionconcerningtheinformationrequestedaswellastheabsenceofanycheckontheaccuracyoftheinformationprovided.Finally,thereportandstatisticscoveredtheperiod19701976.InasmuchasthePintounderwentsubstantialmodificationsduring1973andthereafter,thereportsmaynothavegivenatruepictureoftheearlierversionsofthePinto.

    FordalsocontendsthatitsoffertoprovethatMr.Freers,Ford'schieflightcarengineer,purchasedaPintoforhisfamilywhenthePintofirstwentonthemarketwaserroneouslyrefused.Therecord,however,failstoreflectanysuchofferofproofandForddoesnotcontendotherwise.Thiscourtislimitedtoreviewingmattersappearingofrecord.(Bardessonov.Michels,supra,3Cal.3d780,784Nannyv.RubyLightingCorp.,supra,108Cal.App.2d856,8596Witkin,Cal.Procedure(2ded.)supra,pp.42644265.)Furthermore,evenifanofferofproofhadbeenmadeandthecourthaderroneouslydeniedit,theerrorwouldnothaveresultedinamiscarriageofjusticecompellingreversal.(See6Witkin,Cal.Procedure(2ded.1971)Appeal,304,p.4287.){Page119Cal.App.3d793}

    III

    AllegedMisconductofCounsel

    Fordrecitesalitanyofallegedmisconductbyplaintiffs'counselwhich,iturges,effectivelydenieditafair

  • trial.Thechargesrangefromallegedviolationsofordersinlimine,toaskingquestionssuggestingFordhadbeenguiltyofcriminalconductinanunrelatedmatter,framingquestionscontainingfactualassumptionsnotsupportedbytherecord,tomisconductinargumentstothejury.

    (1)AllegedViolationsofanOrderinLimine:

    Atthecommencementoftrialthecourt,onFord'smotion,madeanorderinliminethatcounselnotmentionanyotherPintofireswithoutfirstapproachingthebenchandobtainingaruling.Fordcontendsthatplaintiffs'counselviolatedthatorderontwooccasionsandthatthecourterredindenyingFord'smotionforamistrialforthoseviolations.

    ThefirstinstancepertainedtoaquestionpropoundedbytheGrays'counseltoahighwaypatrolofficerwhoinvestigatedtheaccidentastowhetherhehadeverseenaPintoinvolvedinanaccidentwithastandardsizedautomobileandwhetherthePintoburned.Fordobjectedandmovedforamistrial.ThejudgesustainedFord'sobjection,deniedthemotionformistrial,andadmonishedthejurythatthequestionwasnotevidenceandthatbothquestionandanswershouldbedisregarded.

    ThesecondinstanceofachargedviolationoftheorderinliminearoseoutofaquestionGrimshaw'scounselaskedFord'sengineer,Mr.Kennedy.ThewitnesswasbeingexaminedonthePinto'svulnerabilityinrearendcollisionsandhadtestifiedthatbasedonperformance,thePintohadperformedbetterthan"thegeneralpopulationinthisparticularrespect."Pressedforthesourceofhisinformation,Mr.KennedyadmittedhewasrelyinguponaFordpressreleasewhichhesaidwasbasedongovernmentstatisticsandfieldperformance.Plaintiffs'counselthereuponaskedthewitnesswhetherheacknowledgedthatthefollowingstatementappearedinagovernmentalreport:"OneachoccasiontheFordPintogastankbuckledandgasspewedforth.Firetotallyguttedthevehicle.Statistics...[recordunclear]...indicatethatthreesuchconflagrationswereexperiencedbyonerentalagencyinasixmonthperiod,demonstratingaclearandpresenthazardtoallPintoowners."Fordobjectedandimmediatelymovedforamistrialonthe{Page119Cal.App.3d794}groundthatthequestionviolatedtheorderinlimineandthatthesubjectmatterofthequestionwasprejudicialtoitscase.Plaintiffs'counselarguedthatthequestionwasproperbecausethewitnesshadinterjectedstatisticsreportedlybasedonfieldperformancesandgovernmentreportstodefendPinto'sperformancebutconcededheshouldhaveapproachedthebenchandobtainedarulingbeforeheaskedthequestion.Thecourtdeniedthemotionforamistrialbutadmonishedplaintiffs'counselthatitwouldnothesitatetograntamistrialifcounseldidnot"proceedwithutmostcare."InopencourtthejudgesustainedFord'sobjectionandadmonishedthejurytodisregardthequestionandtodrawnoinferencesfromit.

    Astothefirstallegedviolation,therecordisnotentirelyclearconcerningtheintendedscopeoftheinitialinlimineorder.Inrulingonthemotionformistrial,thejudgerecalledthattheorderwasmadebeforecounsel'sopeningstatementsandwastotheeffectthatnoreferencebemadeintheopeningstatementstootherPintofireswithoutfirstapproachingthebench.[13]Inanyevent,thequestioncouldnothaveaffectedtheverdictinviewofthepromptadmonitiontothejurytodisregardthequestionandinviewofthejudge'sfrequentadmonitionsthroughoutthetrialthatcounsel'squestionswerenotevidenceandthatnoinferencesweretobedrawnfromthem.(See4Witkin,Cal.Procedure(2ded.1971)Trial,164,pp.29842985,andcasescitedtherein.)

    Astothesecondallegedmisconductrelatingtotheorderinlimine,thequestionarguablymayhavebeenwithinthescopeofpropercrossexaminationoftheadverseexpertwitnessbutthereisnodoubtthatfailuretoapproachthebenchbeforeaskingthequestionviolatedthegroundrulewhichhadbeenclarifiedafterthefirstincident.Thetrialcourt,however,wasinthebestpositiontoevaluatetheeffectofthemisconduct.ItmadethatassessmentinrulingonthemotionforamistrialandlaterinpassingonFord'smotionforanewtrialinwhichoneofthegroundswastheassertedmisconductofcounselinviolatingtheorderinlimine.Indenyingbothmotions,thetrialjudgeimpliedlydeterminedthatthemisconductdidnotresultinprejudiceandthattheverdictwasnottheresult,inwholeorinpart,ofthechargedmisconduct.[14]Suchdeterminationsbythetrialcourtmaynotbedisturbedonappealunlesstheyarepatentlywrong.(Stevensv.Parke,Davis&Co.(1973)9Cal.3d51,72[107Cal.Rptr.45,507P.2d653,94A.L.R.3d1059]Copev.Davison(1947)30Cal.2d193,203[180P.2d873,171A.L.R.667].)Wecannotsaythatthetrialjudge'simplied{Page119Cal.App.3d795}assessmentoftheeffectofthechargedmisconductontheverdictwasmanifestlywrong.

    (2)QuestionsRelatingtoFord'sComplianceWithFederalEmissionStandards:

    [15]Fordcontendsthatplaintiffs'counselwasguiltyofmisconductinattemptingtogetbeforethejurythefactthatFordhaddoctoreditsrecordstoshowcompliancewithfederalemissionstandards,asubjectwhichFordsays

  • wasirrelevanttotheintegrityofthePinto'sfuelsystem.ThematterfirstcameupduringredirectexaminationofMr.Copp.WhenaskedabouthispositionrelativetoFord'scompliancewiththefederalemissionstandards,Mr.CopprespondedthatFordmaintainedtwocomputerprintouts,oneofwhichwasdoctoredtoshowcomplianceandwasusedtoreportthatfacttothegovernment,andthathehadinvestigatedthis"fraud"andcalledittotheattentionofFordexecutives.HewasthenaskedwhetherthissituationresultedincriminalchargesagainstFord.Fordobjectedandmovedforamistrial.Theobjectionwassustainedbutthemotionformistrialwasdeniedandthejurywasadmonishedtodisregardthequestion.Thesecondtimethemattercameupwasduringplaintiff'scrossexaminationofMr.Tubben,Ford'sengineeringexpert,concerningFord'sprocedureincertifyingcompliancewithfederalregulations.HewasaskedwhetherFordkepttwofilesinordertopassfederalemissionstandards.Objectionandamotionformistrialensued.Thecourtsustainedtheobjectionbutdeniedthemistrial.

    Thequestionswerearguablyproperinbothoftheabovedescribedinstances.Mr.Copp'stestimonyconcerningtheemissioncontrolmattertendedtorebutFord'sevidencethatMr.Coppwasfiredforabsenteeismandunsatisfactoryperformance.CrossexaminationofMr.TubbenonthesubjectofcompliancewithfederalemissioncontrolstendedtoimpeachhistestimonythatthePintometallfederalregulations.ThecourtneverthelesssustainedFord'sobjectionstothequestions,presumablyonthebasisthattheprejudicialeffectoftheevidenceoutweigheditsprobativevalue,butdeniedthemistrialmotions.Wefindnoabuseofdiscretioninthecourt'srulingdenyingamistrial.Thereweresufficientbasesforthecourt'simplieddeterminationthatthequestionswerenotaskedinbadfaithandthattheadmonitionstothejurywouldavoidtheharmfuleffectofthequestions.(Seee.g.,Toblerv.Chapman(1973)31Cal.App.3d568,576577[107Cal.Rptr.614]Tellefsenv.KeySystemTransitLines(1958)158Cal.App.2d243,246247[322{Page119Cal.App.3d796}P.2d469,67A.L.R.2d556]4Witkin,Cal.Procedure(2ded.)supra,pp.29842986.)

    (3)TheFormofQuestionsPropoundedbyPlaintiffs'Counsel:

    FordcontendsthatGrimshaw'scounselrepeatedlyaskedquestionscontainingfactualassertionsnotsupportedbytherecordandthatthisconstitutedmisconductrequiringreversal.FordcitesquestionspropoundedduringcrossexaminationofMr.Kennedy,Mr.TubbenandFord'scarburetorexpert.Inmanyoftheexamplescited,Fordinterposednoobjectionsinothers,thecourtsustainedFord'sobjections.Moreimportantly,mostofthequestionsofwhichFordnowcomplainswereproperlyaskedoncrossexaminationofFord'sexperts.[16]Itiswellestablishedthatwidelatitudeshouldbeallowedincrossexaminingexpertsontheirqualificationsandonthereasonsgivenfortheopinionsexpressed.(Evid.Code,721Dillenbeckv.CityofLosAngeles(1968)69Cal.2d472,482[72Cal.Rptr.321,446P.2d129]Lairdv.T.W.MatherInc.(1958)51Cal.2d210,219[331P.2d617]Hopev.Arrowhead&PuritasWaters,Inc.(1959)174Cal.App.2d222,230[344P.2d428].)fn.7Finally,innoneoftheinstancesdidFordevensuggestthatplaintiff'scounselwasguiltyofmisconductinaskingthequestionsitdidnotcitecounselformisconductorrequestanadmonishment.[17]Aclaimofmisconductisentitledtonoconsiderationonappealunlesstherecordshowsatimelyandproperobjectionandrequestthatthejurybeadmonished.(E.g.,Sabellav.SouthernPac.Co.(1969)70Cal.2d311,318[74Cal.Rptr.534,449P.2d750],cert.den.inSouthernPacificCo.v.Sabella(1969)395U.S.960[23L.Ed.2d{Page119Cal.App.3d797}746,89S.Ct.2100]Hornv.Atchison,T.&S.F.Ry.Co.,supra,61Cal.2d602,610.)

    Inlightofthelengthofthetrial,thethousandsofquestionswhichwereaskedandthecomplexityofthefactualissuesinthiscase,itwasinevitablethatsomeofthequestionsmightassumefactsnottheninevidence.Thefewinstancesinwhichthismayhaveoccurredcannotbecharacterizedasapervasivecourseofmisconduct.Theabletrialjudgeintheinstantcasedidnotpermitthetrialtodegenerateintoafreeforall.Heexercisedfirmandfaircontrolovertheconductofthetrial,madepromptevenhandedrulingsonobjections,admonishedcounselwhennecessary,andconstantlyremindedthejurythatwhatcounselsaidwasnotevidence.Wefindnomisconductofcounselormiscarriageofjusticeresultingfromtheformofthequestionspropoundedbyplaintiffs'counsel.WefindnothingapproachingtheegregiousconductofcounselorlackofcourtroomcontrolbythejudgethatoccurredinLovev.Wolf(1964)226Cal.App.2d378[38Cal.Rptr.183],citedbyFordtosupportitscontentions.

    (4)ArgumentstotheJury:FordcontendsthatcounselforGrimshawcommittedprejudicialmisconductduringargumenttothejuryby

    arguingmattersnotsupportedbytheevidence,exaggerating,mischaracterizingexperts'testimony,arguingevidencewhichhadbeenexcluded,andarguingevidenceadmittedforalimitedpurposeasifithadbeenadmittedforallpurposes.Fordalsocomplainsthatinrebuttalargument,Mr.Robinson,arguingforGrimshaw,suggestedanimpropermeansoffixingdamages.

  • Itissettledthatmisconductofcounselinargumenttothejurymaynotbeurgedforthefirsttimeonappealabsentatimelyobjectionandrequestforadmonitioninthetrialcourtiftimelyobjectionandadmonitionwouldhavecuredtheharm.(Sabellav.SouthernPac.Co.,supra,70Cal.2d311,318Hornv.Atchison,T.&S.F.Ry.Co.,supra,61Cal.2d602,610Brokoppv.FordMotorCo.,supra,71Cal.App.3d841,859860.)Misconductofcounselduringargumentmaynotberaisedonappealwherethecomplainingparty'scounselsatsilentlybyduringtheargument,allowedtheallegedimproprietiestoaccumulatewithoutobjection,andsimplymadeamotionforamistrialattheconclusionoftheargument.(Hornv.Atchison,T.&S.F.Ry.Co.,supra,61Cal.2d602,610611Brokoppv.FordMotorCo.,supra,71Cal.App.3d841,860.)Recently,ourhighcourtininPeoplev.Green,supra,{Page119Cal.App.3d798}27Cal.3d1,clarifiedthelawonthetreatmentofadefendant'sassignmentofprejudicialprosecutorialmisconductinargumentstothejuryinacriminalcase.Thecourtstatedthat"theinitialquestiontobedecidedinallcasesinwhichadefendantcomplainsofprosecutorialmisconductforthefirsttimeonappealiswhetheratimelyobjectionandadmonitionwouldhavecuredtheharm.Ifitwould,thecontentionmustberejected[citation]ifitwouldnot,thecourtmustthenandonlythenreachtheissuewhetheronthewholerecordtheharmresultedinamiscarriageofjusticewithinthemeaningoftheConstitution."(Id,atp.34.)Thosepreceptsperforceareapplicabletoacivilcase.

    Inthecaseatbench,Fordfailedtoobjecttoanyofthemattersofwhichitnowcomplainsduringplaintiffs'argumentstothejury.DuringMr.Hews'closingargumentonbehalfofplaintiffGrimshaw,whichcovers100pagesofthereporter'stranscript,Forddidnotinterposeasingleobjection.NordidFordmakeanyobjectionduringMr.Rabin'sclosingargumentonbehalfoftheGrays.DuringarecessFordmovedforamistrialcomplainingoftwomatterstowhichMr.Hewshadreferredduringhisargument:HisreferencetoFord'sknowledgethatdeathwouldresultfromdefectiveandnegligentdesignofthePintoandhisreferencetoadocumentpreparedbyMr.Copppurportingtodepictthe"crusharea"ofthePinto.Thecourtdeniedthemotion,notingthatthereferencetothedocumentpreparedbyMr.Coppbutwhichhadnotbeenreceivedinevidencewasinnocuousandthatthereferencetodeathsaswellasinjurieswasproperundertheevidence.SignificantlyForddoesnotnowcomplainofthecourt'srulingsinconnectionwithitsmotionforamistrial.FollowingMr.Cox'argumentonbehalfofFord,Mr.RobinsonmadetherebuttalargumentforplaintiffGrimshaw.FordmadetwoobjectionstoRobinson'sargument.ForddoesnotassigneitherofthesetworemarksbyMr.Robinsonaserrorormisconductonthisappeal.Thus,noneofthemattersofwhichFordnowcomplainswerematterstowhichanobjectionwasinterposedandarequestforadmonitionmadeinthecourtbelow.Fordis,therefore,precludedfromraisingthecontentionsofmisconductunlesstheyweresuchascouldnothavebeencuredbyanadmonition.

    [18]Inassessingwhetherallegedmisconductcouldhavebeencuredbyadmonition,areviewingcourtmustbearinmindthewidelatitudeaccordedcounselinarguinghiscasetoajury."'"Therightofcounseltodiscussthemeritsofacase,bothastothelawandfacts,isverywide,andhehastherighttostatefullyhisviewsastowhattheevidence{Page119Cal.App.3d799}shows,andastotheconclusionstobefairlydrawntherefrom.Theadversepartycannotcomplainifthereasoningbefaultyandthedeductionsillogical,assuchmattersareultimatelyfortheconsiderationofthejury."'"(Peoplev.Beivelman(1968)70Cal.2d60,7677[73Cal.Rptr.521,447P.2d913],overruledonothergroundsinPeoplev.Green,supra,27Cal.3d1,33,quotingPeoplev.Eggers(1947)30Cal.2d676,693[185P.2d1],andPeoplev.Sieber(1927)201Cal.341,355356[257P.64],disapprovedonothergroundsinPeoplev.Marsh(1962)58Cal.2d732,746[26Cal.Rptr.300,376P.2d300].)"Counselmayvigorouslyarguehiscaseandisnotlimitedto'Chesterfieldianpoliteness.'"(Peoplev.Bandhauer(1967)66Cal.2d524,529[58Cal.Rptr.332,426P.2d900],cert.den.inBandhauerv.California(1967)389U.S.878[19L.Ed.2d167,88S.Ct.178],quotingBallardv.UnitedStates(9thCir.1945)152F.2d941,943,revd.onothergrounds(1946)329U.S.187[91L.Ed.181,67S.Ct.261].)"Anattorneyispermittedtoargueallreasonableinferencesfromtheevidence,..."(Brokoppv.FordMotorCo.,supra,71Cal.App.3d841,860861.)"Onlythemostpersuasivereasonsjustifyhandcuffingattorneysintheexerciseoftheiradvocacywithintheboundsofpropriety."(Beaglev.Vasold(1966)65Cal.2d166,181182[53Cal.Rptr.129,417P.2d673].)

    FordcontendsthatGrimshaw'scounselcommittedprejudicialmisconductinreferringtoFord'sexecutivesmeetinginthe"glasshouse"anddecidingtoapprovethePinto'sfueltankdesignwithknowledgethatitwasunsafeandwouldresultinthelossofmanylives.FordarguesthatalthoughtherewasevidencethatthecorporateheadquartersofFordwasreferredtoasthe"glasshouse"therewasnoevidenceofmanagementmeetingsheldthereinconnectionwiththePintodesign.TherecordcontainssubstantialevidencefromwhichitreasonablymaybeinferredthatFord'smanagementknewthatthePintowasunsafebutneverthelessdecidednottoalleviatetheproblembecauseofcostconsiderations,andthusthatthosedecisionsweremadeinFord'scorporate

  • headquarters.FordcontendsthatGrimshaw'scounselimproperlystated,contrarytotheevidence,thatcertainfactswere

    "undisputed"orhadbeen"admitted."Forexample,FordarguesthatGrimshaw'scounselmisstatedtheevidencewhenhesaidthatbasicallyeveryonewhohadwitnessedtheaccidentestimatedthespeedoftheFordGalaxiewhichstruckthePintoatabout30to40milesperhouratimpact.Wefindnounfairnessorimproprietyincounsel'sstatement.WhileGrimshawthoughtthat{Page119Cal.App.3d800}theGalaxiehadbeentravelingfasterthanthatbeforethecollision,hetestifiedthatbeforetheimpacthelookedforwardanddidnotactuallyobservetheGalaxiewhenitstruckthePinto.AwitnesswhoavoidedcollidingwiththeGrayvehicletestifiedthattheGalaxiecarwastravelingatahigherspeedatimpactbutheonlysawtheaccidentinhisrearviewmirror.Counseldiscussedthatwitness'testimonybeforemakingthestatementofwhichFordcomplains.

    FordfurthercontendsthatGrimshaw'scounselarguedevidencethathadbeenexcludedandarguedevidencereceivedforalimitedpurposeasthoughithadbeenreceivedforallpurposes.ItreferstoMr.Hews'statementthatMr.CopptestifiedthatFordengagedincostbenefitanalysesandthattherewas"plentyofdocumentationforit."FordarguesthatthedocumentationreferredtobyMr.Coppthe"GrushSaunbyReport"wasexcludedfromevidencesothatthestatementwasimproper.However,therewasotherdocumentationwhichillustratedthefactthatcostconsiderationscausedFordtodelayincorporatingsafetyfeaturesinthefueltanksystemofitscarsdespitetheknowledgethattherewasaneedforsuchimprovements.Furthermore,Mr.CoppwaspermittedtotestifythatForddidinfactengageincostbenefitanalyseswhichbalancedlifeandlimbagainstcorporatesavingsandprofits.

    FordassignsanumberofotherremarksbyGrimshaw'scounselasmisstatementsoftheevidenceorexaggerationsormischaracterizationoftestimony.Nousefulpurposewouldbeservedbydetailingthem.WehaveexaminedtherecordandfindthatineachoftheinstancesofwhichFordcomplains,theargumentwaswithintheboundsofpropriety.Moreimportantly,havingfailedtoobjectbelow,itwasincumbentuponFordtodemonstratethattheclaimedimproprietiesweresuchthatapromptobjectionandadmonitiontothejurywouldnothavecorrectedtheerror.Fordhasutterlyfailedtoshowthatinanyofthespecificinstancesofclaimedmisconduct,anobjectionandadmonitionwouldnothaveremediedthesituation.

    IV

    Instructions

    Fordcomplainsofinstructionalerrorsondesigndefectandsupersedingcause.{Page119Cal.App.3d801}

    (1)DesignDefects:

    Sometwoweeksbeforethiscasewenttothejury,theSupremeCourtinBarkerv.LullEngineeringCo.(1978)20Cal.3d413[143Cal.Rptr.225,573P.2d443,96A.L.R.3d1],formulatedthefollowing"twopronged"definitionofdesigndefect,embodyingthe"consumerexpectation"standardand"riskbenefit"test:"First,aproductmaybefounddefectiveindesigniftheplaintiffestablishesthattheproductfailedtoperformassafelyasanordinaryconsumerwouldexpectwhenusedinanintendedorreasonablyforeseeablemanner.Second,aproductmayalternativelybefounddefectiveindesigniftheplaintiffdemonstratesthattheproduct'sdesignproximatelycausedhisinjuryandthedefendantfailstoestablish,inlightoftherelevantfactors,that,onbalance,thebenefitsofthechallengeddesignoutweightheriskofdangerinherentinsuchdesign."(Id,atp.432.)The"relevantfactors"whichajurymayconsiderinapplyingtheBarker"riskbenefit"standardinclude"thegravityofthedangerposedbythechallengeddesign,thelikelihoodthatsuchdangerwouldoccur,themechanicalfeasibilityofasaferalternativedesign,thefinancialcostofanimproveddesign,andtheadverseconsequencestotheproductandtotheconsumerthatwouldresultfromanalternativedesign."(Id,atp.431.)Undertheriskbenefittest,oncetheplaintiffmakesaprimafacieshowingthattheinjurywasproximatelycausedbytheproduct'sdesign,theburdenshifts"tothedefendanttoprove,inlightoftherelevantfactors,thattheproductisnotdefective."(Id,atp.431.)

    [19]FordrequestedtwoinstructionspurportingtosetouttheBarkertestsfordesigndefect,fn.8butthecourtgaveonlythefollowinginstruction:"Aproductisdefectiveindesigniftheproducthasfailedtoperformassafelyasanordinaryconsumerwouldexpectwhenusedinanintendedorreasonablyforeseeablemanner."Fordcomplainsthatthefailuretogivethebalanceoftheotherrequestedinstructionconstituted{Page119Cal.App.3d802}prejudicialerror.Forthereasonssetoutbelow,weconcludethatthecontentionlacksmerit.

  • Initially,Barkerdoesnotmandateajuryinstructiononbothprongsofthetestsinadesigndefectcase.TheBarkercourtreferredtothetwostandardsforevaluatingdesigndefectas"alternativetests"andinitssuggestedinstructionphrasedthetestsinthedisjunctive.fn.9(Id,atp.435.)ThecourtstatedthatthealternativeriskbenefitprongoftheBarkertestwasdesignedtoaidtheinjuredpartyinestablishingdesigndefectsbecause"'[i]nmanysituations...theconsumerwouldnotknowwhattoexpect,becausehewouldhavenoideahowsafetheproductcouldbemade.'"(Barkerv.LullEngineeringCo.,supra,20Cal.3d413,430,quotingWade,OnTheNatureofStrictTortLiabilityforProducts(1973)44Miss.L.J.825,829Levy&Ursin,TortLawinCalifornia:AttheCrossroads(1979)67Cal.L.Rev.497,503)ThecourtreferredtothefactthatnumerousCaliforniadecisionshaverecognizedthisfactbymakingitclear"[t]hataproductmaybefounddefectiveindesignevenifitsatisfiesordinaryconsumerexpectations,ifthroughhindsightthejurydeterminesthattheproduct'sdesignembodies'excessivepreventabledanger,'or,inotherwords,ifthejuryfindsthattheriskofdangerinherentinthechallengeddesignoutweighsthebenefitsofsuchdesign."(Id,atp.430.)Thus,theriskbenefittestwasformulatedprimarilytoaidinjuredpersons.TheinstantcasewassubmittedsolelyontheconsumerexpectationstandardbecausethetrialhadbeenvirtuallycompletedbeforetheBarkerdecisionwasrenderedinwhichourhighcourtforthefirsttimearticulatedtheriskbenefitstandardofdesigndefect.

    Fordthereforecannotcomplainofthefailuretoinstructontheriskbenefittest.Indeed,hadtheriskbenefitprongofthedesigndefectinstructionasformulatedinBarkerbeengiven,Fordwouldhavebeenentitledtocomplainofprejudice.Theinstructionprovidesthataproductisdefectiveindesignif"plaintiffprovesthattheproduct'sdesignproximatelycausedhisinjuryandthedefendantfailstoprove,...that{Page119Cal.App.3d803}onbalancethebenefitsofthechallengeddesignoutweightheriskofdangerinherentinsuchdesign."(Id,atp.435italicssupplied.)Hadthejurybeensoinstructed,FordcouldhavejustifiablyclaimedprejudicebecausethecasehadnotbeentriedontheassumptionthatunderariskbenefitanalysisFordhadtheburdenofprovingthattheproductwasnotdefective

    Finally,evenhaditbeenpropertoinstructontheriskbenefittest,Ford'srequestedversionofthestandardwasdefectiveintwoimportantrespects.Firstitomittedthecrucialelementofthemanufacturer'sburdenofproofintheriskbenefitposture.NordidFordofferaseparateinstructioncoveringthesubjectoftheburdenofproof.Second,theproposedinstructionerroneouslyincludedamongthe"relevantfactors,""theextenttowhichits[Pinto's]designandmanufacturematchedtheaveragequalityofotherautomobilesandtheextenttowhichitsdesignandmanufacturedeviatedfromthenormforautomobilesdesignedandmanufacturedatthesamepointintime."[20]Inastrictproductsliabilitycase,industrycustomorusageisirrelevanttotheissueofdefect.(Titusv.BethlehemSteelCorp.(1979)91Cal.App.3d372[154Cal.Rptr.122]Fogliov.WesternAutoSupply(1976)56Cal.App.3d470,477[128Cal.Rptr.454]seeCroninv.J.B.E.OlsonCorp.(1972)8Cal.3d121,133134[104Cal.Rptr.433,501P.2d1153].)TheBarkercourt'senumerationoffactorswhichmaybeconsideredundertheriskbenefittestnotonlyfailstomentioncustomorusageintheindustry,thecourtotherwisemakesclearbyimplicationthattheyareinappropriateconsiderations.Barkercontraststheriskbenefitstrictliabilitytestwithanegligentdesignaction,statingthat"thejury'sfocusisproperlydirectedtotheconditionoftheproductitself,andnottothereasonablenessofthemanufacturer'sconduct.[Citations.][]Thus,[thecourtexplains]"thefactthatthemanufacturertookreasonableprecautionsinanattempttodesignasafeproductorotherwiseactedasareasonablyprudentmanufacturerwouldhaveunderthecircumstances,whileperhapsabsolvingthemanufacturerofliabilityunderanegligencetheory,willnotprecludetheimpositionofliabilityunderstrictliabilityprinciplesif,uponhindsight,thetrieroffactconcludesthattheproduct'sdesignisunsafetoconsumers,users,orbystanders.(SeeFogliov.WesternAutoSupply,supra,56Cal.App.3d470,477.)"(Barkerv.LullEngineeringCo.,supra,20Cal.3d413,434.)InFoglio,weheldthataninstructionpermittingthejuryinastrictproductsliabilitycasetoconsiderindustrycustomorpracticeindeterminingwhetheradesigndefectexistedconstitutederror.{Page119Cal.App.3d804}

    Forthereasonsstatedabove,theotherinstructionsFordrequestedwhichwouldhavepermittedthejurytoconsidercustomorusageinthetradeindeterminingwhetheradesigndefectexistedwerealsoproperlyrefused.fn.10

    (2)SupersedingCauses:

    Fordrequestedthefollowinginstructiononsupersedingcause:"Ifyoufindthatthegasolinetankinthe1972Pintoautomobilewasimproperlylocatedorprotectedbutthatthefirewouldhaveoccurredevenifthetankhadbeenproperlylocatedorprotected,itslocationorprotectionwasnotasubstantialfactorinbringingaboutthefire

  • andwas,therefore,notacontributingcausethereof."Instead,thecourtgavethefollowinginstruction:"Ifyoufindthatthedefectsallegedtoexistinthe1972Pintodidinfactexistbutthatthefireandresultinginjurieswouldhaveoccurredevenifthedefectsdidnotexist,thedefectswerenotasubstantialfactorinbringingaboutthefireandthereforewerenotcontributingfactorstotheresultinginjuries."Fordassignstherefusalofitsinstructionandthegivingoftheotherinstructionaserror.

    Fordcontendsthatoneofitsdefensestotheclaimsbasedonthedesignofthefueltankanditslocationandprotectionwasthattheimpactspeedwassogreatthatthefueltankruptureandfirewouldhaveoccurredwithoutregardtothelocationandprotectionofthefueltank.ItconcedesthatdefensewouldhavebeenofnoavailastocompensatorydamageshadthejuryfoundthatthePintostalledonthefreewaybecauseofacarburetordefectbutthatitcouldhavebeenadefensetopunitivedamagesbecausethatclaimrestedentirelyonFord'sconductwithrespecttothefueltank'sdesign,positionandprotection.Fordarguesthatitsprofferedinstructionwas"accurateandcomplete"andtailoredtofititsdefensebasedonthefueltanklocationandprotection{Page119Cal.App.3d805}andthattheinstructiongivenbythecourt,usingtheword"defects"insteadofthepreciseclaimeddefectspertainingtothefueltank,effectivelyeliminatedFord'ssupersedingcausedefenseastothefueltank.Itarguesthatundertheinstructionasgivenifthejuryfoundonlythatthecarburetorwasdefectiveandwasasubstantialcauseofthefire,thenitcouldconcludethatalloftheclaimeddefectsweresubstantialcausesofthefireandthatnosupersedingcausehadintervened.Wefindnomeritinthecontentions.

    Initially,wenotethatFord'sprofferedinstructionwasnot"accurateandcomplete."Oneofthemajordefectswhichplaintiffsclaimedcausedthefireintheinteriorofthevehiclewasthesusceptibilityoftherearwheelwellstoseparatefromthefloorpan.Therewassubstantialevidencetosupportafindingthatsuchdefectexisted.Ford'sinstructionfailedcompletelytotakethismajordefectintoaccount.Second,Ford'sargumentthatuseoftheword"defect"intheinstructiongivenbythecourtpermittedthejurytoconcludethatifitfoundthatadefectivecarburetorwasasubstantialfactorincausingthefire,theotherallegeddefectsrelatingtolocationofthefueltankandtherearstructureofthecarwerethenalsosubstantialcausesofthefireissuchastrainedandobscureinterpretationthatitcouldnothavebeenindulgedbyanyreasonablejuror.NoneoftheattorneysattemptedtointerprettheinstructioninthemannernowsuggestedbyFord.Indeed,argumentofcounselonbothsidesmadeitclearthattheonly"defects"referredtointheinstructiononsupersedingcausewerethoseinvolvingthegasolinetankandrearstructureofthevehicle,notthecarburetor.

    Ford'srelianceonSelfv.GeneralMotorsCorp.(1974)42Cal.App.3d1[116Cal.Rptr.575],foritscontentionthatthecourt'sinstructionwasinadequateismisplaced.InSelf,thetrialcourtfailedtogiveanyinstructiononsupersedingcauseandthereviewingcourtheldthatthefailuretogivethesupersedingcauseinstructionprofferedbythedefendantwaserror.(Id,atpp.1011.)HerethecourtrefusedFord'sversionofasupersedingcauseinstructionbutgaveitsownwhichadequatelycoveredthesubject.[21]Apartyhastherighttohavethejuryinstructedonhistheoryofthecasebutdoesnothavetherighttorequirehisphraseologythecourtmaymodifyaninstructionorgiveaninstructionofitsowninlieuoftheoneofferedprovideditcorrectlyinstructsthejuryontheissue.(Johnsv.Ward(1959)170Cal.App.2d780,789[339P.2d926]4Witkin,Cal.Procedure(2ded.1971)Trial,193,p.3013,andcasescitedtherein.){Page119Cal.App.3d806}

    V

    JuryMisconduct

    Fordcontendsthatthejudgmentshouldbereversedforjurymisconduct.ThiswasoneofFord'sgroundsforamotionfornewtrial.Itfileddeclarationsbyitsattorneys,JurorIreneMiller,herhusband,JurorGoldieWoodsandJurorWilfordColmar.JurorsWoodsandColmarhadbeenexcusedduringtrial.ThemisconductchargedbyJurorMiller,herhusbandandJurorWoodswasdirectedagainstJurorDorothyCanfield.ThedeclarationofJurorColmarstatedthathehadpossiblymentionedtootherjurorsthathehadseensevereburnsinWorldWarIIandthoughtthatviewingslidesofGrimshaw'sburnswouldnotbotherhimbutthathewaswrong.ThedeclarationsbyFord'sattorneyssaidtheyhadinterviewedJurorCanfieldandthattheinterviewcorroboratedthechargesmadebyJurorIreneMiller.PlaintiffsfileddeclarationsbyJurorCanfield,herhusbandand10otherjurorsandalternatesrefutingthechargesmadeinthedeclarationsfiledbyFord.Wehavereviewedallofthedeclarationsandfindthattheopposingdeclarationscontrovertthesubstanceofallofthechargesofmisconduct,eitherspecificallyorbyreasonableinferenceswhichmaybedrawnfromthefactsallegedinthedeclarations.AstoJurorColmar'sdeclaration,wefailtoseehowFordwasprejudicedbyhisstatementthathehadseenburnvictimsduringWorld

  • WarIIorbyhisstatementthathedidnotthinkhewouldbeaffectedbyviewingtheGrimshawslidesbutwasapparentlymistaken.TheghastlynatureoftheburnssufferedbyGrimshawwasgraphicallydemonstratedbytheevidenceandwasapparenttoallthejurors.

    IndenyingFord'smotionforanewtrial,thetrialcourtimpliedlyresolvedallconflictsinthedeclarationsinfavorofplaintiffs.(Weathersv.KaiserFoundationHospitals(1971)5Cal.3d98,108[95Cal.Rptr.516,485P.2d1132].)[22]"'Whenanissueistriedonaffidavits...andwherethereisasubstantialconflictinthefactsstated,adeterminationofthecontrovertedfactsbythetrialcourtwillnotbedisturbed.'"(Id,atp.108,quotingLynchv.Spilman(1967)67Cal.2d251,259[62Cal.Rptr.12,431P.2d636].)Itisnotourfunctionasareviewingcourttoreweightheevidence,resolveconflictingevidenceandinferences,ortojudgethecredibilityofthewitnesses.(Acevesv.RegalPaleBrewingCo.,supra,24Cal.3d502,507Nestlev.CityofSantaMonica,supra,6Cal.3d920,925.)WefindnomeritinFord'sjurymisconductcontention.{Page119Cal.App.3d807}

    VI

    PunitiveDamages

    Fordcontendsthatitwasentitledtoajudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdictontheissueofpunitivedamagesontwogrounds:First,punitivedamagesarestatutorilyandconstitutionallyimpermissibleinadesigndefectcasesecond,therewasnoevidentiarysupportforafindingofmaliceorofcorporateresponsibilityformalice.Inanyevent,Fordmaintainsthatthepunitivedamageawardmustbereversedbecauseoferroneousinstructionsandexcessivenessoftheaward.

    (1)"Malice"UnderCivilCodeSection3294:

    [23]TheconceptofpunitivedamagesisrootedintheEnglishcommonlawandisasettledprincipleofthecommonlawofthiscountry.(Owen,PunitiveDamagesinProductsLiabilityLitigation(1976)74Mich.L.Rev.1258,12621263(hereafterOwen)Mallor&Roberts,PunitiveDamages:TowardsAPrincipledApproach(1980)31HastingsL.J.639,642643(hereafterMallor&Roberts)Note,ExemplaryDamagesintheLawofTorts(1957)70Harv.L.Rev.517,518520.)ThedoctrinewasapartofthecommonlawofthisstatelongbeforetheCivilCodewasadopted.(Mendelsohnv.AnaheimLighterCo.(1871)40Cal.657,661Nightingalev.Scannell(1861)18Cal.315,325326Dorseyv.Manlove(1860)14Cal.553,555556Wilsonv.Middleton(1852)2Cal.54.)Whenourlawswerecodifiedin1872,thedoctrinewasincorporatedinCivilCodesection3294,whichatthetimeoftrialread:"Inanactionforthebreachofanobligationnotarisingfromcontract,wherethedefendanthasbeenguiltyofoppression,fraud,ormalice,expressorimplied,theplaintiff,inadditiontotheactualdamages,mayrecoverdamagesforthesakeofexampleandbywayofpunishingthedefendant."fn.11{Page119Cal.App.3d808}

    [24]Fordarguesthat"malice"asusedinsection3294andasinterpretedbyourSupremeCourtinDavisv.Hearst(1911)160Cal.143[116P.530],requiresanimusmalusorevilmotiveanintentiontoinjurethepersonharmedandthatthetermisthereforeconceptuallyincompatiblewithanunintentionaltortsuchasthemanufactureandmarketingofadefectivelydesignedproduct.Thiscontentionrunscountertoourdecisionallaw.Asthiscourtrecentlynoted,numerousCaliforniacasesafterDavisv.Hearst,supra,haveinterpretedtheterm"malice"asusedinsection3294toinclude,notonlyamaliciousintentiontoinjurethespecificpersonharmed,butconductevincing"aconsciousdisregardoftheprobabilitythattheactor'sconductwillresultininjurytoothers."(Dawesv.SuperiorCourt(1980)111Cal.App.3d82,88[168Cal.Rptr.319],hg.den.12/17/80e.g.,Taylorv.SuperiorCourt(1979)24Cal.3d890,895896[157Cal.Rptr.693,598P.2d854]Nealv.FarmersIns.Exchange(1978)21Cal.3d910,922[148Cal.Rptr.389,582P.2d980]Schroederv.AutoDriveawayCo.(1974)11Cal.3d908,922923[114Cal.Rptr.622,523P.2d662]Silbergv.CaliforniaLifeIns.Co.(1974)11Cal.3d452,462[113Cal.Rptr.711,521P.2d1103]Donnellyv.SouthernPacificCo.(1941)18Cal.2d863,869870[118P.2d465]Nolinv.NationalConvenienceStores,Inc.(1979)95Cal.App.3d279,285286[157Cal.Rptr.32]Seimonv.SouthernPac.TransportationCo.(1977)67Cal.App.3d600,607[136Cal.Rptr.787]G.D.Searle&Co.v.SuperiorCourt(1975)49Cal.App.3d22,3032[122Cal.Rptr.218]Peasev.BeechAircraftCorp.(1974)38Cal.App.3d450,465[113Cal.Rptr.416]Barthv.B.F.GoodrichTireCo.(1968)265Cal.App.2d228,240241[71Cal.Rptr.306]Toolev.RichardsonMerrellInc.(1969)251Cal.App.2d689,713714[60Cal.Rptr.398,29A.L.R.3d988].)Pease,BarthandToolewerestrictproductsliabilitycases.

    InTaylorv.SuperiorCourt,supra,24Cal.3d890,ourhighcourt'smostrecentpronouncementonthesubjectof

  • punitivedamages,the{Page119Cal.App.3d809}courtobservedthattheavailabilityofpunitivedamageshasnotbeenlimitedtocasesinwhichthereisanactualintenttoharmplaintifforothers.(Id,atp.895.)ThecourtconcurredwiththeSearle(G.D.Searle&Co.v.SuperiorCourt,supra,49Cal.App.3d22)court'ssuggestionthatconsciousdisregardofthesafetyofothersisanappropriatedescriptionoftheanimusmalusrequiredbyCivilCodesection3294,adding:"Inordertojustifyanawardofpunitivedamagesonthisbasis,theplaintiffmustestablishthatthedefendantwasawareoftheprobabledangerousconsequencesofhisconduct,andthathewilfullyanddeliberatelyfailedtoavoidthoseconsequences."(Id,atpp.895896.)

    FordattemptstominimizetheprecedentialforceoftheforegoingdecisionsonthegroundtheyfailedtoaddressthepositionnowadvancedbyFordthatintenttoharmaparticularpersonorpersonsisrequiredbecausethatwaswhatthelawmakershadinmindin1872whentheyadoptedCivilCodesection3294.FordarguesthattheLegislaturewasthinkingintermsoftraditionalintentionaltorts,suchas,libel,slander,assaultandbattery,maliciousprosecution,trespass,etc.,andcouldnothaveintendedthestatutetobeappliedtoaproductsliabilitycasearisingoutofadesigndefectinamassproducedautomobilebecauseneitherstrictproductsliabilitynormassproducedautomobileswereknownin1872.

    AlikeargumentwasrejectedinLiv.YellowCabCo.(1975)13Cal.3d804[119Cal.Rptr.858,532P.2d1226,78A.L.R.3d393],wherethecourtheldthatinenactingsection1714aspartofthe1872CivilCode,theLegislaturedidnotintendtopreventjudicialdevelopmentofthecommonlawconceptsofnegligenceandcontributorynegligence.Asthecourtnoted,thecodeitselfprovidesthatinsofarasitsprovisionsaresubstantiallythesameasthecommonlaw,theyshouldbeconstruedascontinuationsthereofandnotasnewenactments(Civ.Code,4,5),andthusthecodehasbeenimbued"withadmirableflexibilityfromthestandpointofadaptationtochangingcircumstancesandconditions."(Id,atp.816.)InlightofthecommonlawheritageoftheprincipleembodiedinCivilCodesection3294,fn.12itmustbeconstrued{Page119Cal.App.3d810}asa"continuation"ofthecommonlawandliberallyapplied"withaviewtoeffectitsobjectsandtopromotejustice."(Civ.Code,4,5.)ToparaphraseLiv.YellowCabCo.,supra,13Cal.3d804,theapplicablerulesofconstruction"permitifnotrequirethatsection[3294]beinterpretedsoastogivedynamicexpressiontothefundamentalpreceptswhichitsummarizes."(Id,atp.822.)

    Theinterpretationoftheword"malice"asusedinsection3294toencompassconductevincingcallousandconsciousdisregardofpublicsafetybythosewhomanufactureandmarketmassproducedarticlesisconsonantwithandfurtherstheobjectivesofpunitivedamages.Theprimarypurposesofpunitivedamagesarepunishmentanddeterrenceoflikeconductbythewrongdoerandothers.(Civ.Code,3294Owen,supra,pp.1277,12791287Mallor&Roberts,supra,pp.648650.)Inthetraditionalnoncommercialintentionaltort,compensatorydamagesalonemayserveasaneffectivedeterrentagainstfuturewrongfulconductbutincommercerelatedtorts,themanufacturermayfinditmoreprofitabletotreatcompensatorydamagesasapartofthecostofdoingbusinessratherthantoremedythedefect.(Owen,supra,p.1291Note,MassLiabilityandPunitiveDamagesOverkill(1979)30HastingsL.J.1797,1802.)Deterrenceofsuch"objectionablecorporatepolicies"servesoneoftheprincipalpurposesofCivilCodesection3294.(Eganv.MutualofOmahaIns.Co.(1979)24Cal.3d809,820[169Cal.Rptr.691,620P.2d141]cert.den.andapp.dismd.MutualofOmahaIns.Co.v.Egan(1980)445U.S.91[63L.Ed.2d597,100S.Ct.1271].)Governmentalsafetystandardsandthecriminallawhavefailedtoprovideadequateconsumerprotectionagainstthemanufactureanddistributionofdefectiveproducts.(Owen,supra,pp.12881289Mallor&Roberts,supra,pp.655656DevelopmentsintheLaw:CorporateCrime(1979)92Harv.L.Rev.1227,1369.SeePeoplev.SuperiorCourt(Olson)(1979)96Cal.App.3d181,191,196[157Cal.Rptr.628],cert.den.ForestE.OlsonInc.v.SuperiorCourtofCalifornia(1980)446U.S.935[64L.Ed.2d787,100S.Ct.2152].)Punitivedamagesthusremainasthemosteffectiveremedyforconsumerprotectionagainstdefectivelydesignedmassproducedarticles.Theyprovideamotiveforprivateindividualstoenforcerulesoflawandenablethemtorecouptheexpensesofdoingsowhichcanbeconsiderableandnototherwiserecoverable.

    WefindnostatutoryimpedimentstotheapplicationofCivilCodesection3294toastrictproductsliabilitycasebasedondesigndefect.{Page119Cal.App.3d811}

    (2)ConstitutionalAttacksonCivilCodeSection3294:

    [25]Ford'scontentionthatthestatuteisunconstitutionalhasbeenrepeatedlyrejected.(Eganv.MutualofOmahaIns.Co.,supra,24Cal.3d809,819Berterov.NationalGeneralCorp.(1974)13Cal.3d43,66,fn.13[118Cal.Rptr.184,529P.2d608,65A.L.R.3d878]Zhadanv.DowntownL.A.Motors(1976)66Cal.App.3d481,502[136Cal.Rptr.132]Wetherbeev.UnitedIns.Co.ofAmerica(1971)18Cal.App.3d266,272[95

  • Cal.Rptr.678]Fletcherv.WesternNationalLifeIns.Co.(1970)10Cal.App.3d376,404405[89Cal.Rptr.78,47A.L.R.3d286].)Ford'sargumentthatitsdueprocessrightswereviolatedbecauseitdidnothave"fairwarning"thatitsconductwouldrenderitliableforpunitivedamagesunderCivilCodesection3294ignoresthelonglineofdecisionsinthisstatebeginningwithDonnellyv.SouthernPacificCo.(1941)supra,18Cal.2d863,869870,holdingthatpunitivedamagesarerecoverableinanondeliberateorunintentionaltortwherethedefendant'sconductconstitutesaconsciousdisregardoftheprobabilityofinjurytoothers.(SeeDawesv.SuperiorCourt,supra,111Cal.App.3d82,88Nolinv.NationalConvenienceStores,Inc.,supra,95Cal.App.3d279,285286.)TherelatedcontentionthatapplicationofCivilCodesection3294totheinstantcasewouldviolatetheexpostfactoprohibitionofthefederalConstitutionbecauseatthetimeitdesignedthe1972PintoFordhadnowarningthatitsconductcouldbepunishedunderCivilCodesection3294isequallywithoutmerit.Thisconstitutionalprohibitionextendstocriminalstatutesandpenalties,nottocivilstatutes.(E.g.,InreBray(1979)97Cal.App.3d506,512[158Cal.Rptr.745]Ellisv.Dept.ofMotorVehicles(1942)51Cal.App.2d753,758[125P.2d521].)Moreover,attheveryleastsinceToolev.RichardsonMerrell,Inc.(1967)supra,251Cal.App.2d689,itshouldhavebeenclearthatamanufacturerofadangerous,defectiveproductmightbeliableforpunitivedamagesifitknowinglyexposedotherstothehazard.

    Equallywithoutmeritistheargumentthatthestatutepermitsanunlawfuldelegationoflegislativepowerbecauseitfailstoprovidesufficientguidancetothejudgeandjury.Aswehaveexplained,thedoctrineofpunitivedamagesanditsapplicationaregovernedbycommonlawprinciples.Judicialdevelopmentofcommonlawlegalprinciplesdoesnotconstituteanunlawfulusurpationoflegislativepoweritisaproperexerciseofapowertraditionallyexercisedbythejudiciary.Theprecisecontentionnowadvancedhasbeenpreviouslyrejected.{Page119Cal.App.3d812}(Toolev.RichardsonMerrell,Inc.,supra,251Cal.App.2d689seeBerterov.NationalGeneralCorp.,supra,13Cal.3d43,66,fn.13.)

    TheargumentthatapplicationofCivilCodesection3294violatestheconstitutionalprohibitionagainstdoublejeopardyisequallyfallacious.Thisprohibitionliketheexpostfactoconceptisapplicableonlytocriminalproceedings.(E.g.,Helveringv.Mitchell(1938)303U.S.391,399[82L.Ed.917,921922,58S.Ct.630]Lemerv.BoiseCascade,Inc.(1980)107Cal.App.3d1,7[165Cal.Rptr.555].)

    TherelatedcontentionthatthepotentialliabilityforpunitivedamagesinothercasesforthesamedesigndefectrenderstheimpositionofsuchdamagesviolativeofFord'sdueprocessrightsalsolacksmerit.Followedtoitslogicalconclusion,itwouldmeanthatpunitivedamagescouldneverbeassessedagainstamanufacturerofamassproducedarticle.Noauthoritiesarecitedforsuchapropositionindeed,aswehaveseen,thecasesaretothecontrary.Werecognizethefactthatmultiplicityofawardsmaypresentaproblem,butthemerepossibilityofafutureawardinadifferentcaseisnotagroundforsettingasidetheawardinthiscase,particularlyasreducedbythetrialjudge.IfFordshouldbeconfrontedwiththepossibilityofanawardinanothercaseforthesameconduct,itmayraisetheissueinthatcase.Weadd,moreover,thatthereisnonecessaryunfairnessshouldtheplaintiffinthiscaseberewardedtoagreaterextentthanlaterplaintiffs.AsProfessorOwenhassaidinresponsetosuchachargeofunfairness:"Thisconceptionignorestheenormousdiligence,imagination,andfinancialoutlayrequiredofinitialplaintiffstouncoverandtoprovetheflagrantmisconductofaproductmanufacturer.Infact,subsequentplaintiffswilloftenridetofavorableverdictsandsettlementsonthecoattailsofthefirstcomers."(Owen,supra,74Mich.L.Rev.atp.1325,fn.omitted.)Thatobservationfitstheinstantcase.

    (3)SufficiencyoftheEvidencetoSupporttheFindingofMaliceandCorporateResponsibility:

    [26a]Fordcontendsthatitsmotionforjudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdictshouldhavebeengrantedbecausetheevidencewasinsufficienttosupportafindingofmaliceorcorporateresponsibilityforsuchmalice.Therecordfailstosupportthecontention.

    [27]"Therulescircumscribingthepowerofatrialjudgetograntamotionforjudgmentnotwithstandingtheverdictarewellestablished.{Page119Cal.App.3d813}Thepowertograntsuchamotionisidenticaltothepowertograntadirectedverdictthejudgecannotweightheevidenceorassessthecredibilityofwitnessesiftheevidenceisconflictingorifseveralreasonableinferencesmaybedrawn,themotionshouldbedeniedthemotionmaybegranted'"'onlyifitappearsfromtheevidence,viewedinthelightmostfavorabletothepartysecuringtheverdict,thatthereisnosubstantialevidencetosupporttheverdict.'"'(Clemmerv.HartfordInsuranceCo.(1978)22Cal.3d865,877878[151Cal.Rptr.285,587P.2d1098]Brandenburgv.Pac.Gas&Elec.Co.(1946)28Cal.2d282,284[169P.2d909],quotingHauterv.Zogarts(1975)14Cal.3d104,110111[120Cal.Rptr.681,534P.2d377,74A.L.R.3d1282].)"(Castrov.StateofCalifornia(1981)114Cal.App.3d503,512[170Cal.Rptr.

  • 734].)[26b]TherewasampleevidencetosupportafindingofmaliceandFord'sresponsibilityformalice.ThroughtheresultsofthecrashtestsFordknewthatthePinto'sfueltankandrearstructurewouldexpose

    consumerstoseriousinjuryordeathina20to30mileperhourcollision.TherewasevidencethatFordcouldhavecorrectedthehazardousdesigndefectsatminimalcostbutdecidedtodefercorrectionoftheshortcomingsbyengaginginacostbenefitanalysisbalancinghumanlivesandlimbsagainstcorporateprofits.Ford'sinstitutionalmentalitywasshowntobeoneofcallousindifferencetopublicsafety.TherewassubstantialevidencethatFord'sconductconstituted"consciousdisregard"oftheprobabilityofinjurytomembersoftheconsumingpublic.

    Ford'sargumentthattherecanbenoliabilityforpunitivedamagesbecausetherewasnoevidenceofcorporateratificationofmaliciousmisconductisequallywithoutmerit.[28]CaliforniafollowstheRestatementrulethatpunitivedamagescanbeawardedagainstaprincipalbecauseofanactionofanagentif,butonlyif,"'(a)theprincipalauthorizedthedoingandthemanneroftheact,or(b)theagentwasunfitandtheprincipalwasrecklessinemployinghim,or(c)theagentwasemployedinamanagerialcapacityandwasactinginthescopeofemployment,or(d)theprincipaloramanagerialagentoftheprincipalratifiedorapprovedtheact.'(Rest.2dTorts(Tent.DraftNo.19,1973)909.)"(Eganv.MutualofOmahaIns.Co.,supra,24Cal.3d809,822Merlov.StandardLife&Acc.Ins.Co.(1976)59Cal.App.3d5,18[130Cal.Rptr.416].)Thepresentcasecomeswithinoneorbothofthecategoriesdescribedinsubdivisions(c)and(d).{Page119Cal.App.3d814}

    ThereissubstantialevidencethatmanagementwasawareofthecrashtestsshowingthevulnerabilityofthePinto'sfueltanktoruptureatlowspeedrearimpactswithconsequentsignificantriskofinjuryordeathoftheoccupantsbyfire.TherewastestimonyfromseveralsourcesthatthetestresultswereforwardedupthechainofcommandvicepresidentRobertAlexanderadmittedtoMr.CoppthathewasawareofthetestresultsvicepresidentHaroldMacDonald,whochairedtheproductreviewmeetings,waspresentatoneofthosemeetingsatwhichareportonthecrashtestswasconsideredandadecisionwasmadetodefercorrectiveactionanditmaybeinferredthatMr.Alexander,aregularattenderoftheproductreviewmeetings,wasalsopresentatthatmeeting.McDonaldandAlexanderweremanifestlymanagerialemployeespossessingthediscretiontomake"decisionsthatwillultimatelydeterminecorporatepolicy."(Eganv.MutualofOmahaIns.Co.,supra,24Cal.3d809,823.)TherewasalsoevidencethatHaroldJohnson,anassistantchiefengineerofresearch,andMr.MaxJurosek,chiefchassisengineer,wereawareoftheresultsofthecrashtestsandthedefectsinthePinto'sfueltanksystem.FordcontendsthosetwoindividualsdidnotoccupymanagerialpositionsbecauseMr.CopptestifiedthattheyadmittedawarenessofthedefectsbuttoldhimtheywerepowerlesstochangetherearenddesignofthePinto.Itmaybeinferredfromthetestimony,however,thatthetwoengineershadapproachedmanagementaboutredesigningthePintoorthat,beingawareofmanagement'sattitude,theydecidedtodonothing.Ineithercasethedecisionnottotakecorrectiveactionwasmadebypersonsexercisingmanagerialauthority.Whetheranemployeeactsina"managerialcapacity"doesnotnecessarilydependonhis"level"inthecorporatehierarchy.(Id,atp.822.)AstheEgancourtsaid:"'Defendantshouldnotbeallowedtoinsulateitselffromliabilitybygivinganemployeeanonmanagerialtitleandrelegatingtohimcrucialpolicydecisions.'"(Id,atp.823,quotingconc.anddis.opn.inMerlov.StandardLife&Acc.Ins.Co.,supra,59Cal.App.3datp.25.)

    [26c]Whilemuchoftheevidencewasnecessarilycircumstantial,therewassubstantialevidencefromwhichthejurycouldreasonablyfindthatFord'smanagementdecidedtoproceedwiththeproductionofthePintowithknowledgeoftestresultsrevealingdesigndefectswhichrenderedthefueltankextremelyvulnerableonrearimpactatlowspeedsandendangeredthesafetyandlivesoftheoccupants.Suchconductconstitutescorporatemalice.(SeeToolev.RichardsonMerrell,Inc.,supra,251Cal.App.2d689,713.){Page119Cal.App.3d815}

    (4)InstructionsonMalice:

    [29a]Initsinstructionstothejury,thetrialcourtdefinedmaliceasfollows:"'Malice'meansamotiveandwillingnesstovex,harass,annoyorinjureanotherperson.Malicemaybeinferredfromactsandconduct,suchasbyshowingthatthedefendant'sconductwaswilful,intentional,anddoneinconsciousdisregardofitspossibleresults."ThecourtalsoinstructedthejurythatplaintiffGrimshawhadtheburdenofproving"[t]hatthedefendantactedwithmalicewhichmaybeinferredfromdefendant'sconductiftheconductwaswilful,intentional,anddoneinconsciousdisregardofitspossibleresults."

    Onappeal,Fordcontendsthatthephrase"consciousdisregardofitspossibleresults"usedinthetwoinstructionswouldpermitaplaintifftoimpugnalmosteverydesigndecisionasmadeinconsciousdisregardofsomeperceivableriskbecausesaferalternativedesignsarealmostalwaysapossibility.Fordarguesthatto

  • instructthejurysothattheymightfind"malice"ifanysuch"possibility"existedwaserroneousitmaintainsthataninstructionon"malice"inproductsliabilitymustcontainthephrase"consciousdisregardof[theprobability/ahighprobability]ofinjurytoothers,"inordertoprecludeprejudicialerror.FordcitesDawesv.SuperiorCourt,supra,111Cal.App.3d82,recentlydecidedbythiscourt,foritsauthority.

    TheinstructiononmaliceasgivenbythecourtwasformerBAJINo.14.71withaonewordmodification.BAJINo.14.71thenreadinpertinentpart:"'Malice'meansamotiveandwillingnesstovex,harass,annoyorinjureanotherperson.Malice...maybeinferredfromactsandconductsuchasbyshowingthatthedefendants'conduct,waswilful,intentional,anddoneinrecklessdisregardofitspossibleresults."Theinstructionasgivenmerelysubstitutedtheword"conscious"fortheword"reckless."fn.13Thephrase"wilful,intentionalanddoneinrecklessdisregardofitspossibleresults"usedinformerBAJINo.14.71seemstohavemadeitsfirstappearanceinToolev.RichardsonMerrellInc.,supra,251Cal.App.2d689,713.TheTooleformulationhasbeenrepeatedsinceinanumberofdecisions,e.g.,Trammellv.Western{Page119Cal.App.3d816}UnionTel.Co.(1976)57Cal.App.3d538,557[129Cal.Rptr.361]Blackv.Shearson,Hammill&Co.(1968)266Cal.App.2d362,369[72Cal.Rptr.157],andSchroederv.AutoDriveawayCo.(1974)supra,11Cal.3d908,923.InSchroeder,theSupremeCourtapprovedtheTooleexpressionofthekindofbehaviorwhichwouldsupportapunitiveaward,stating:"But'intent,'inthelawoftorts,denotesnotonlythoseresultstheactordesires,butalsothoseconsequenceswhichheknowsaresubstantiallycertaintoresultfromhisconduct.


Ford Motor Zetec

Ford Motor Zetec

Documents
s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com...Ref: 9021 Shaw & Co Grimshaw & Co Grtrnshaw & Col' Grimshaw Co Fowlers Walk, Ealing, London W5 IBQ Grimshaw & Co Grimshaw & Co GrimShaw & Co GRIMSHAW 5

s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com...Ref: 9021 Shaw & Co Grimshaw & Co Grtrnshaw & Col' Grimshaw Co Fowlers Walk, Ealing, London W5 IBQ Grimshaw & Co Grimshaw & Co GrimShaw & Co GRIMSHAW 5

Documents
BY THOR MOTOR COACH - RVUSA.com Motor Coach...22B 22E 23U 2F 26B 28Z 2G 3D 31E 31L 31W Chassis Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford Ford Ford Ford

BY THOR MOTOR COACH - RVUSA.com Motor Coach...22B 22E 23U 2F 26B 28Z 2G 3D 31E 31L 31W Chassis Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford / Chevy Ford Ford Ford Ford

Documents
Ford Motor Company CA Certification Practice Statementcrl.ford.com/Repository/fmccps.pdf · Ford Motor Company Certification Practice Statement Ford Motor Company Certification Practice

Ford Motor Company CA Certification Practice Statementcrl.ford.com/Repository/fmccps.pdf · Ford Motor Company Certification Practice Statement Ford Motor Company Certification Practice

Documents
RUV BY THOR MOTOR COACH - RVUSA.comlibrary.rvusa.com/brochure/2017_Thor Motor Coach_Vegas.pdfRUV BY THOR MOTOR COACH 24.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 Chassis Ford Ford Ford Ford Gross Vehicle (GVWR)

RUV BY THOR MOTOR COACH - RVUSA.comlibrary.rvusa.com/brochure/2017_Thor Motor Coach_Vegas.pdfRUV BY THOR MOTOR COACH 24.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 Chassis Ford Ford Ford Ford Gross Vehicle (GVWR)

Documents
Henry Ford & Ford Motor Co

Henry Ford & Ford Motor Co

Documents
Ford Motor Co

Ford Motor Co

Documents
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC · PDF fileFord Motor Credit Company LLC $10,000,000,000 Ford Interest Advantage FLOATING RATE DEMAND NOTES Ford Motor Credit Company LLC offers its Ford

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC · PDF fileFord Motor Credit Company LLC $10,000,000,000 Ford Interest Advantage FLOATING RATE DEMAND NOTES Ford Motor Credit Company LLC offers its Ford

Documents
a07 Ford Motor

a07 Ford Motor

Documents
Exposicion Motor Ford

Exposicion Motor Ford

Documents
Compania Ford Motor

Compania Ford Motor

Documents
Catalogo Subconjuntos & Conjuntos 2010 · fiat allis motor 8035.06 3 x ford ford ecosport - dv4td ford fiesta 1.3 ford escort gl / ghia - motor 1.6l cht ford zetec - motor 1,8 ford

Catalogo Subconjuntos & Conjuntos 2010 · fiat allis motor 8035.06 3 x ford ford ecosport - dv4td ford fiesta 1.3 ford escort gl / ghia - motor 1.6l cht ford zetec - motor 1,8 ford

Documents
Ford Motor Company

Ford Motor Company

Documents
Ford Motor

Ford Motor

Documents
Motor Ford Cht

Motor Ford Cht

Documents
FORD MOTOR CO - bankchb.com · Ford Credit is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). As used herein “Ford Credit” refers to Ford Motor Credit

FORD MOTOR CO - bankchb.com · Ford Credit is an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). As used herein “Ford Credit” refers to Ford Motor Credit

Documents
Motor Ford

Motor Ford

Documents
Ford Motor Credit Company LLC $10,000,000,000 Ford ... · Ford Motor Credit Company LLC $10,000,000,000 Ford Interest Advantage FLOATING RATE DEMAND NOTES Ford Motor Credit Company

Ford Motor Credit Company LLC $10,000,000,000 Ford ... · Ford Motor Credit Company LLC $10,000,000,000 Ford Interest Advantage FLOATING RATE DEMAND NOTES Ford Motor Credit Company

Documents
motor ford F150

motor ford F150

Documents
General & Ford Motor

General & Ford Motor

Documents
Ford Motor Analysis

Ford Motor Analysis

Documents
Transforming Ford Motor ...Transforming Ford Motor Company

Transforming Ford Motor ...Transforming Ford Motor Company

Documents
Ford Motor Co

Ford Motor Co

Documents
Copyright 2015 Ford Motor Company Motor Company Ford Motor Company

Copyright 2015 Ford Motor Company Motor Company Ford Motor Company

Documents
Ford Motor Company - Ford Mustang

Ford Motor Company - Ford Mustang

Automotive
25-Apr-2018 Ford Motor Co. · Ford Motor Co. (25-Apr-2018

25-Apr-2018 Ford Motor Co. · Ford Motor Co. (25-Apr-2018

Documents
Ford Motor Company - organizacija.fon.bg.ac.rsorganizacija.fon.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/02-Ford-Motor... · Ford Motor Company Osnovi organizacije - vežbe. Ford Motor

Ford Motor Company - organizacija.fon.bg.ac.rsorganizacija.fon.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/02-Ford-Motor... · Ford Motor Company Osnovi organizacije - vežbe. Ford Motor

Documents