Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll

"dazed and confuzzed" <dedmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:69idnVMlgdXBeX7fRVn-oA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

> Or, the marketplace would have removed these products anyway, and the
> companies making such inferior products would have had to change their
> practices or be left with no customers.

Wrong. The manufacturers would make a simple cost/benefit analysis as
they've always done, valuing lost lives by their customary monetary
equivalent: earnings for the remainder of the victim's life. Today,
however, their analyses take into account something much more real to them
than human lives: the potential of losing millions in a lawsuit and thereby
pissing off the stockholders.

For instance, with the Pinto, Ford decided that the cost of a few lost lives
didn't add up to the cost of a simple fix to save those lives. Thanks to
lawyers and punitive damages, companies today make their calculations favor
the human lives.

GRIMSHAW v. FORD MOTOR CO. (1981) 119 CA3d 757

http://online.ceb.com/calcases/CA3/119CA3d757.htm

"When a prototype failed the fuel system integrity test, the standard of
care for engineers in the industry was to redesign and retest it. The
vulnerability of the production Pinto's fuel tank at speeds of 20 and
30-miles-per-hour fixed barrier tests could have been remedied by
inexpensive "fixes," but Ford produced and sold the Pinto to the public
without doing anything to remedy the defects. Design changes that {Page 119
Cal.App.3d 776} would have enhanced the integrity of the fuel tank system at
relatively little cost per car included the following: Longitudinal side
members and cross members at $2.40 and $1.80, respectively; a single shock
absorbant "flak suit" to protect the tank at $4; a tank within a tank and
placement of the tank over the axle at $5.08 to $5.79; a nylon bladder
within the tank at $5.25 to $8; placement of the tank over the axle
surrounded with a protective barrier at a cost of $9.95 per car;
substitution of a rear axle with a smooth differential housing at a cost of
$2.10; imposition of a protective shield between the differential housing
and the tank at $2.35; improvement and reenforcement of the bumper at $2.60;
addition of eight inches of crush space a cost of $6.40. Equipping the car
with a reinforced rear structure, smooth axle, improved bumper and
additional crush space at a total cost of $15.30 would have made the fuel
tank safe in a 34 to 38-mile-per-hour rear-end collision by a vehicle the
size of the Ford Galaxie. If, in addition to the foregoing, a bladder or
tank within a tank were used or if the tank were protected with a shield, it
would have been safe in a 40 to 45-mile-per-hour rear impact. If the tank
had been located over the rear axle, it would have been safe in a rear
impact at 50 miles per hour or more.
..
..
..
Through the results of the crash tests Ford knew that the Pinto's fuel tank
and rear structure would expose consumers to serious injury or death in a
20- to 30-mile-per-hour collision. There was evidence that Ford could have
corrected the hazardous design defects at minimal cost but decided to defer
correction of the shortcomings by engaging in a cost-benefit analysis
balancing human lives and limbs against corporate profits. Ford's
institutional mentality was shown to be one of callous indifference to
public safety. There was substantial evidence that Ford's conduct
constituted "conscious disregard" of the probability of injury to members of
the consuming public.
..
..
..
Nor was the reduced award excessive taking into account defendant's wealth
and the size of the compensatory award. Ford's net worth was $7.7 billion
and its income after taxes for 1976 was over $983 million. The punitive
award was approximately .005 percent of Ford's net worth and approximately
..03 percent of its 1976 net income. The ratio of the punitive damages to
compensatory damages was approximately 1.4 to 1. Significantly, Ford does
not quarrel with the amount of the compensatory award to Grimshaw.
..
..
..
Here, the judge, exercising his independent judgment on the evidence,
determined that a punitive award of $3 1/2 million was "fair and
reasonable." Evidence pertaining to Ford's conduct, its wealth and the
savings it realized in deferring design modifications in the Pinto's fuel
system might have persuaded a different fact finder that a larger award
should have been allowed to stand. Our role, however, is limited to
determining whether the trial judge's action constituted a manifest and
unmistakable abuse of discretion. Here, the judge referred to the evidence
bearing on those factors in his new trial order and obviously weighed it in
deciding what was a "fair and reasonable" award. We cannot say that the
judge abused the discretion vested in him by Code of Civil Procedure section
662.5 or that there is "no substantial basis in the record" for the reasons
given for the order. Finally, while the trial judge may not have taken into
account Ford's potential liability for punitive {Page 119 Cal.App.3d 824}
damages in other cases involving the same tortious conduct in reducing the
award, it is a factor we may consider in passing on the request to increase
the award. Considering such potential liability, we find the amount as
reduced by the trial judge to be reasonable and just. We therefore decline
the invitation to modify the judgment by reducing the amount of the
remittitur."




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
    ... For instance, with the Pinto, Ford decided that the cost of a few lost lives didn't add up to the cost of a simple fix to save those lives. ... The vulnerability of the production Pinto's fuel tank at speeds of 20 and 30-miles-per-hour fixed barrier tests could have been remedied by inexpensive "fixes," but Ford produced and sold the Pinto to the public without doing anything to remedy the defects. ... Equipping the car with a reinforced rear structure, smooth axle, improved bumper and additional crush space at a total cost of $15.30 would have made the fuel tank safe in a 34 to 38-mile-per-hour rear-end collision by a vehicle the size of the Ford Galaxie. ... Nor was the reduced award excessive taking into account defendant's wealth and the size of the compensatory award. ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: Hair algae in new setup
    ... >>>recommended a second one for the other end of the tank. ... >> I don't know what they cost in Australia- probably a fortune at LFS ... My phosphate kit is a Sera, ... I dont' mind moving the rock around when I know where ...
    (rec.aquaria.marine.reefs)
  • Re: Jerks who run you off the road
    ... Damn BMW exhaust pipe cost $1400! ... Mine was the fuel tank gauge which refused to act as though the tank ... Yes, she's plenty fast for me, as well. ... but I didn't know about the oil filler cap ...
    (rec.motorcycles)
  • Re: What Tank to Buy?
    ... Cost to fill the tank ... Cost to get an annual visual inspection ... The shop fills your O2 clean tank with premix and then removes the ...
    (rec.scuba)
  • Re: Jerks who run you off the road
    ... Damn BMW exhaust pipe cost $1400! ... Mine was the fuel tank gauge which refused to act as though the tank were ... Yes, she's plenty fast for me, as well. ... but I didn't know about the oil filler cap ...
    (rec.motorcycles)