Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll

• From: dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 16:02:47 -0500

Greg Mossman wrote:

"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.

try again, a weak example at best.

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."

--

"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions"
G.K. Chesterton

.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
    • From: Greg Mossman

• References:
  • Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
    • From: \"Magilla\"
  • Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
    • From: dazed and confuzzed
  • Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
    • From: Greg Mossman

• Prev by Date: Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
• Next by Date: Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
• Previous by thread: Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
• Next by thread: Re: Muslim world rejecting violence, says poll
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

• Security
• UNIX
• Linux
• Coding
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint